We should we should RAISE the age limit. Kids know nothing about real life. They don’tpay taxes, pay a mortgage, raise families, work 40 hour weeks etc
Do not need a 16 year old’s opinion, they need to worry about getting a date to Prom
22
I would raise the voting age to 25. You should have a college education and some work/life experience to cast a thoughtful vote. Trump got most of the illiterate vote in 2016, and that has to stop.
18
On this same website there is also an article about the recent backlash against Woody Allen's "Manhattan" in the wake of the #Metoo movement. The "objectionable" thing in that movie is a 17 -year old dating an older man. So which is it- 16 year olds are mature enough to vote and decide the direction of the country, or they are fragile and immature and need protection from older men?
17
No we shouldn't. We should just make voting compulsory.
6
Lowering the voting age to 16 isn't going to happen for the same reason Puerto Rico isn't a state: it doesn't suit Republicans.
4
I see nothing about 16 year olds that makes them any less small minded than retirees. Let them vote.
8
Unfortunately, it is objectively known that psychology is not anywhere near an exact science. Many people would like it to be and so have rationalized their perspective of it.
Just take a look at the many stupid decisions made by young people, never mind 16. These days they haven't a clue or plan about their education, college, profession, career path, etc. - and you recommend that they vote.
As they say, "you can't fix stupid".
12
I was so naive at 16 - I should not have had a voice. Then again, I could say that about myself at any age until the current.
More troubling is that my truly demented aunt who doesn't know left from right anymore can still vote.
I don't see a right answer here.
3
Poppycock. Balderdash. Drivel. Pure nonsense.
If anything, teens (including the 18 & 19 year olds) are INCAPABLE of "cold cognition" that fairly analyzes the pros and cons of their political decisions and choices. The teens are also vulnerable to manipulation by politicians who promise them freebies like free college and free healthcare - Sanders did it efficiently and effectively.
Teens are impulsive and have the same capacity for cold reflection as a hungry monkey that has set its sight on a banana.
Give me a break.
18
Sixteen year old's can be easily manipulated. That is why the right wing wants them to vote. The right wing inflames society with it's lies and it knows that teenagers are prime targets to be recruited to spread lies and disinformation on social media.
2
the voting age is 18 because that is the age you can be drafted and sent to fight in military.
3
Why not? Since we allow 16 year olds to make life and death decisions behind the wheel of 3,000 pound vehicles going high velocity, seems like they should also have judgment enough to vote. Or how about allow kids to vote at 16, then drive at 18? Makes more sense
7
Rational people with experience with 16 year olds will immediately recognize how unwise this suggestion is. They may be smart enough to have views on not getting shot at school, but they lack the experience, knowledge and judgment to vote, as do almost all who are 21 and above as well. That is why we continue to have preening useless politicians representing us.
11
If and ONLY If .. there is one age of adulthood and agency for ALL matters. Tobacco use, driving, drinking, military enlistment, sexual consent .. otherwise we are admitting we are handing control of our nation to children.
1
Terrible idea. It would make Republican suppression of the vote that much harder.
Great idea. It would only follow that we also lower the drinking age to 16, the age to buy all firearms to 16, the marriage age to 16, the age to join the military to 16. Right?
6
It's not just age that's important. it's R
It's not just age that's critical, but Education. Voters should have an education at least through the first 12 years, which are free. Also. they should have a grade average of at least 2.5 or 3.0, and have studied and understand the importance of Critical Thinking.
7
Age 16 is no problem for me. In the age of Trump, the chronological voting age is less a concern to me than so-called "adults" who bought Trump's scam that he was a hugely successful businessman, when his record of real estate scams, bankruptcies, and stiffing contractors went back decades.
Imagine if Obama had claimed that he was a "Constitutional Law Professor," when he actually bought a fake diploma from an online "University". . . Like say, Trump's University, for example. Imagine the howls of "fraud" from the GOP.
How about requiring a high school diploma which certifies you actually learned and demonstrated the ability to do some critical thinking?
2
If a 16 year old is considered an adult when he commit a crime why he should be considered as a child when it is time to debate politics and vote?
4
Why 16? Why not 15?
Or 14? Or 12?
".....motivated by today’s outrage that those most vulnerable to school shootings have no say in how such atrocities are best prevented. Let’s give those young people more than just their voices to make a change."
4
What a strange country we are living in currently. Here in the NYT have been calls to raise the minimum age to buy "assault weapons" and other long guns (rifles and shotguns) to 21 because those 18-20 years old are too immature to handle gun ownership, and, yet, here is a suggestion to lower the minimum voting age to younger than 18. Already, society has decided that you must be 21 to legally buy and consume alcohol because most younger people aren't mature enough to do so responsibly. Therefore, it appears to me we should be discussing raising the minimum voting age. Since you must be at least 35 years to be elected President, we might consider making this the new minimum voting age. Just a contrary thought/recommendation.
15
Absolutely! So glad to see this article today— made my week!
1
Lowering the voting age to 16 makes as much sense as voting for Donald Trump did. Let's lower the age for presidential candidates below 60...
4
Republicans are never going to allow 16 year olds to vote because polling is going to show they will all vote a progressive line.
1
Hogwash. There were good reasons why the Founding Fathers put an age limit on our Senators, for example. A certain maturity and living EXPERIENCE was thought necessary for the judgement required to consider affairs of the nation. I will go along with what we have done for the voting ages as a compromise that voting for representation may not require the same qualification as that of high office but I stop at giving the vote to 16 year olds that remain subject the legal responsibility of their parents even if the child is smarter than the parent.
6
The age of majority should be reduced to 16 and voting included absolutely. Even sexual maturity and age of consent to 14. This age group knows more about a broader range of things pertaining to responsibility in judgement than most readers here I suspect. Who's gonna fix your iPhone or computer for you?
1
A lot of comments here make the argument that 16-year-olds are too immature, lack wisdom, etc.
Here's my solution: instead of arbitrarily handing out citizenship to every being born on our soil, let's only give them residency instead. If anyone wants to vote, they have to pass their citizenship tests and become full-blooded Americans.
This would solve most of our nation's problems as well as some of your concerns. If a 16-year-old could pass and earn their citizenship, I'd bet money that we got some patriotic and wise Americans voting. That doesn't only apply to 16-year-olds but 25-year-olds and 67-year-olds.
It's time to stop handing out citizenship and the rights and responsibilities that duly accompany it.
3
I've read many of the strongly negative comments here, and I'm struck by how little they apply to anyone I've known at 16, and by how well these same comments apply to 'adults'. No, I'm not abandoning hope that adults can learn again how to care for each other, but in a time when it is all too easy to abandon our children to the tender mercies of the market, isn't it reasonable to oblige our political leaders to pay attention to them, to listen at least to those who haven't already made the cynical choice to be silent?
I don't harbor the illusion that all children will vote wisely, but those who strenuously argue that therefore none of them should, have taken a leap much too far. I also don't believe that all 'adults' vote wisely, or (to put it bluntly), in the interests of children. Would the writers of these bilious and overwrought screeds against the youth vote similarly disenfranchise us? Don't our children deserve to be heard about things that matter to them? Or do they need to die first?
1
A grand sentiment, but I'm afraid most parents in this country are more interested in seeing their children participate in athletics, hold an after school job or take out the garbage.
Conservative parents are more likely to create ciphers reflecting their own philosophy & beliefs. Who needs more voters like the teenager pictured with the AR-15 on the firing range from a recent Times article.
2
Only somebody from academia could possibly think this is a good idea.
Remember, these kids are from the same student population that makes 'cyber-bullying' an art form. And which has led to many terribly tragic consequences. In-school bullying is the same ... intended to be mean and humiliate their classmates. Let these kids start w/their classmates for inclusion before telling the rest of the country how to act.
7
16 year olds are heavily influenced by their parents. Giving them the vote would essentially be giving millions of middle aged conservatives an extra vote. I say conservatives because parents of teenagers tend to strongly oppose under aged drinking, drug use and unrestrained sex. They may favor doing well at school and respect for authority. If Democrats want to win more elections, they should work out a scheme to double the votes of people in public housing projects and college professors.
1
Doesn't anyone think it's a teensy bit funny that many of the people who think the voting age should be lowered also applaud stores that are raising the age of customers they will sell a gun to to 21?
5
Whoa! What about 14_ and 15-year-olds - what are they, chopped liver?
No conceivable reason why lowering the age should stop at 16?
(Other than the fact that, at 14, 15, 16 and 17, their brains are still developing and they cannot be expected to understand the consequences of their actions.)
6
I remember the voting age being dropped to 18 when I had just turned that age. I voted. But I had no idea of the complexity of the issues and the people I voted for. I voted along the lines of my parents who were staunch Democrats. And honestly, because I was so involved in getting my life together after college, figuring out where I belonged in the world, that my vote probably wasn't even meaningful until I was in my late 20s when the responsibility of life started to really come into focus and what my vote really meant.
15
Actually, I think it's a great idea-
If few young people vote and you lower the voting age a bit, it will go viral and
they may turn out to be a large block of voters and besides, kids are for the most part fair and caring people - I think it's a very refreshing idea -
3
Most comments here are against the idea, Would they had thought the same about the Women´s vote ? .
It seems forgotten that the vote is voluntary not compulsive, They would vote if they had something important to vote for, don´t underestimate youngsters, perhaps not in the USA.
2
Unfortunately, while a 16 year old has a huge stake in the matter, parents are still responsible for ensuring the care and safety of a child under 18. The preparation for life, decision making and consequences is still underway at that point. Adults ca put down the smart phones and engage with the children you brought into the world and community where you live. When you converse and spend time with your children, you may make a difference. Another law to change the age for voting is not going to change a society that has abdicated its responsibility.
4
Public policy questions are almost always a matter of trade-off of factors. Part of this is what things cost. Buying a new Mercedes can sound like a great idea, but the decision may no longer feel like a good idea when the cost of ownership is recognized.
Voting age should ideally start when people are of an age where the majority pay income taxes, as that is the tradeoff that must be factored in when deciding which public policy ideas are good.
The NYT frequently has articles about how people at 18 did not understand the impact, importance and burden of paying back student loans because they were so young when the agreed to take the loan money. Is a person who cannot fully understand the issues of their own debt be expected to understand the more complex issues of government spending and debt?
9
How about "Fourteen or Fight" from "Wild in the Streets"? Or maybe bar mitzvah age, 13, or bas mitzvah age for girls, 12? The Parkland students tell us they don't even take a basic civics course till senior year. Sorry, whatever study it was that asserted that cognitive skills are in place by age sixteen apparently placed no weight on the value of experience. In many places you can get a license to drive at sixteen, but you may need an older person in the car or you may not be permitted to drive at night. Statistically more accidents for this less experienced, more dangerous younger set (as insurers are aware). There may be some test for maturity that would admit many at sixteen and deny many at twenty-five, but we have not found it yet.
5
I never understood the logic behind the age of maturity in different societies, from the early teens to 21 or older. In today's society of spoiled, pampered, TV-addicted, and texting teenagers, l would not trust the rationality of any 16-year-old.
11
On the surface this seems a great idea, but participation in voting will likely be even lower in the 16-17 year-old demographic than the anemic participation of 18-21 year-olds. Even more disconcerting is that a significant number of 16-17 year-olds are vapid and so obsessed with their phones and instagram, and other apps that real understanding of the issues is nearly impossible if it cannot fit into three sentences on Buzzfeed. I take no joy in writing this.
1
I'm a boomer who thinks that the ways things are going the minimum voting age should be 16 and a max age of 20 should be set.
4
Perhaps the tests should be something otther than suggested here. Maybe one should have the vote in the first year in which they are responsible for their own health insurance, lodging, food, etc. We have increased the age of dependency, so perhaps when dependency ends, a responsible citizen should emerge.
1
"The young people who have come forward to call for gun control in the wake of the mass shooting at their high school in Parkland, Fla., are challenging the tiresome stereotype of American kids as indolent narcissists whose brains have been addled by smartphones. They offer an inspiring example of thoughtful, eloquent protest."
I agree with Prof. Steinberg. And that is precisely the reason today's congressional Republicans would never do this--the likelihood that they would approve a modern version of the 26th amendment is: zero.
Having said this, there are locales that are beginning to test the prospect: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/02/28/the-surpri... ("The surprising consequences of lowering the voting age to 16," posted 1 March). There is no clean answer, but one of the essay's remarks caught my attention:
"Many children start leaving home around age 18 — meaning that many young people will leave home before the first election in which they can vote. If the voting age was 16 or 17, more children would still live with their parents in their first election — and both groups would be a bit more likely to vote."
"Unfortunately, when it comes to electing lawmakers whose decisions about gun control and other issues affect their lives..." Another single-issue group of voters.
Okay, but if 16-year olds get the right to vote, then they have to take on the *obligations* of citizenship as well: they get to serve in the army, be tried as an adult and sign legally-binding contracts as well.
4
As a high school teacher, I can't disagree more.
Eighteen is fine.
11
Unfortunately, this is a pipe dream, or pipeline dream as it were. There is no way the Republican-controlled congress would ever allow 16- to 18-year-olds to vote, as they would undoubtedly skew blue.
The average college student is ignorant of basic civics. He does not know how many Senators we have, and has no idea who his own representatives are in Congress or in his state Legislature. And yet, the author wants to allow kids 4 years younger than these to vote? I question the author's claim of maturity, but don't yet have the stats to argue that point. But it is indisputable that most 16 year olds do not have the knowledge of US and world events that we would want a voter to have.
The argument that 16-18 year olds would outnumber adults at the polls is another reason to avoid lowering the voting age, not the reverse. Who wants 16 year olds making every major politcal decision in the country? I certainly do not.
7
The starting point for solving the gun violence problem shouldn't be mass shootings. It's no surprise that people like Steinberg who believe the issue can be solved through more laws would like to allow people to vote who are more likely to vote Democratic.
The young men who are committing these heinous acts aren't necessarily crazy or evil in the purest sense. This is a long, dark path they are on toward ends like suicide or to shooting up a school. People from Michael Ian Black who wrote about this in the time to Jordan Peterson get this. Mental health, unfortunately, is written off in the mainstream press as a conservative's scapegoat for the access to guns.
The sheer number of guns indeed is paramount to understanding the prevalence of all gun violence but we have to understand that before we can even begin solving the mass shooting gun violence problem, we have to solve the other two gun violence problems: suicides and homicides.
Bad policy will arise from writing more legislation that won't be enforced based on events that are random and widely circumstantial. The root cause of the gun violence doesn't begin with mass shootings and neither should any purpose-driven solution.
Lowering the voting age won't either. As a compromise, I half-heartedly suggest lowering the age at the state level and raising at the federal to encourage local problem-solving and civic engagement before imposing uniformity on all Americans are the federal level.
This is one of those liberal ideas that would backfire. During the '16 Campaign most of the 16 year olds I encountered with my son of similar age were all Trump supporters. Liberalism requires thought and experience. If 16 year olds were allowed to vote in November of 2016, the popular vote total would have been much closer and the election not affected at all.
I feel we should have a common age for voting, buying alcohol, entering the military or owning a firearm. Where we set that age would be a contentious debate, however I feel that we owe it to our country and the young people that have to live in the world we leave for them.
1
Great Idea! We should also give equal votes to all our teenage children, so they may wisely decide the direction of each family!
I am quite confident that the true intent behind this argument is to expand the number of potential voters who will register as Democrats. Teenagers typically do not pay taxes, have limited responsibilities, and hazy notions of how our political system operates, including how it is funded. Ergo, only a small percentage would vote for a Republican.
1
Any doubts that 16-year-olds are not competent to vote are met with the apparent incompetency of voters of all ages. Look what we got now: the kids can't be worse than the electorate in general.
Moreover, if voting were on the horizon in high school, civics education would be on the curriculum adding a dimension too many of our fellow citizens lack.
Let's do it.
I’m going out on the limb here. I was opposed to the 26th amendment. I still believe having the voting and legal adult age at 21. I would still go with 20. But I felt that 18 year olds were still too young to vote.
2
Bad idea. Sixteen year old brains have not matured enough, sixteen year olds have not had to support themselves and a family, and sixteen year olds are not generally concerned with long term goals. If anything, maybe the voting age should be raised to 25, the same age one has to be to serve in Congress.
2
It is not correct to burden our youth with our failures. My argument against lowering the age to vote is to keep our youth focused on studies and in making the best choice for their future careers. The gun control argument is but one of the many choices that electing a president entails. Hopefully, this matter will be resolved in due course, and then our youngster will need not spend enormous amount of time to keep abreast of all innuendos of national and international policy. No doubt, they would do it better than us, since they live and breath academic accuracy. We fail in protecting our youth if we divert their energy from their studies to make them share in the responsibility of following a presidential campaign. I am still recovering from 2017!
1
As a minimal voting requirement, a grade of "passing" should be required on a nationally accredited civics exam, administered to all high school students, after a full year of course study including local, state, and federal governments.
1
I recall a day when the votes of the legislators heavily effected people who were not permitted to vote, perhaps there is now a need to incorporate even younger folks into the national debate? I think so.
Nowadays, when I want bad ideas, outside the Republican Party, the best place to find them is generally the NYT editorial pages. (I was going to say "the Democratic Party" but it seems to me they boil down to the same thing.)
Let's see. We have neuroscience telling us the brain's higher centers of self-control and rationality don't mature until around age 26. We have endocrinology telling us adolescents are a mass of chaotic roiling hormones and impulses. We have educators telling us the world is more complex than ever, and navigating it requires a huge knowledge base that takes time to amass and curate - not just Googling or believing whatever your 'friends' shared on social media.
Soooo, here's a great idea: let's turn the running of the country over to a horde of Middle School kids at the mercy of their glands, with a superego in the larval stage. Who don't even know enough not to send nude selfies to total strangers and are so helicoptered they break down in tears and text their parents for guidance when the supermarket clerk asks 'paper or plastic?'
What could go wrong?
I suppose you could argue they can't do worse than their elders have done ... but that's not much of a recommendation.
Let’s see. You want to raise the age for gun purchases to 21 and deny the right to marry to anyone under 18. Kids can join the military at 18 but can’t get a legal drink until 21. But our states are all too willing to punish kids who commit crimes to life on registries or in maximum security prisons. Our way of looking at and dealing with minors makes no sense. If they’re kids for one purpose, they should be kids for all. No, 16 year olds should not have the right to vote. They also should not go to prison or be allowed to marry or raise children without oversight or suffer lifelong consequences for what they do as minors. Eighteen should be the age of legality for everything.
3
We should have several days, including weekends to vote in elections. Our ballots must be safe and tamper-proof. First, fix our weak election process.
Sooner than later.
Since the voting age was lowered to 18, the issues and responsibilities of adulthood have grown MORE complex and fraught with peril, not less. Professor, how many 18 year-olds do you know of that truly live on their own? I do not believe that most people under 21 are capable of living independently without some assistance (financial or otherwise), nor would I expect them to be. They should be allowed to acclimate themselves to today’s society gradually. The voting age, if anything, should be RAISED back to 21.
3
Of course, if 16-year-olds can work and drive a car legally, it makes sense they should be able to vote. Besides, a person who is 16 at the start of a term for many lawmakers, will have to wait years to vote that person in or out of office, while having to endure officials they had no opportunity to vote into office.
Remember, in some states a female of 15 can be married to a male of 40. I think they should at least give that 15 year old woman a chance to vote for better treatment of women when she is 16.
1
I have no real problem lowering the voting age to 16, but the reality is lowering it to 18 did not make that much difference. It is older people who vote more often and younger people often don't vote at all.
1
90% of the electorate stay with their party no matter what. So it’s a fight over 10% of voters.
This measure would increase the number of people voting who are not fixed in their voting patterns.
That means more people will actually vote on the issues. That terrifies both republicans and democrats, so it will never happen.
Is it “right”? Who will on average live longer with the consequences of every election? Young people. Again, that would recognize long term ideas as valid, which terrifies the establishment.
There are many things we can do to train and affirm our young people in the responsibilities of citizenship in a republic. I cannot support extending the vote to those under 21, even though it is possible in many situations today. While there are 16 year old individuals we can celebrate, whose political views are well thought out, perhaps more rationally thought out than those who have the privilege of voting, I believe they are the exception. I support a year of universal service to our country, and even at my rather advanced age, would be informed by and honored to serve. This tradition of education and service would be of great benefit to our society.
7
>I cannot support extending the vote to those under 21<
I think 18 year olds can vote now.
I think they should increase the voting age to 30. Most people don't really know what life is about until then. Although it makes for an interesting article, thankfully this will never happen in my lifetime.
14
You beat me to it. I was going to suggest 25 but what's five years. The point is that the current "voter" is either too young to fully grasp the implications of elections or just too stupid to figure out what's really going on. I remember Neil Bortz saying 20 years ago that 85% of the population is too stupid to be allowed to vote. We now know he was wrong.....it's really 95%.
In direct response to the shootings at Parkland, the high school where I teach will be holding voter registration drives. The students want it. This has not happened in this high school in recent memory. My students may not yet be able to vote, but they will. And when they do vote, the GOP is going to be sorry.
8
Only 16% of 18 to 29 year olds voted in the last midterms, the lowest percentage of any age group, and my bet is that the lower the age, the less likely it was that they voted. Let's get those people voting before we drop the voting age to 16. I'm one of the baby boomers who fought to lower the voting age from 21 to 18, although I was 21 by the time 18-year-olds could vote anyway, but we wasted our efforts because most young people don't bother to vote. Maybe the Parkland kids can get their generation to vote.
10
The minimum voting age should be no lower than the minimum age established for buying an AR-15. And that should be the same minimum age for owning a cell phone, and obtaining a driver's license. I humbly submit 25 years old.
18
I hope this is meant as satire. Not allowing a driver's license till 25 has no basis in reality-- in addition it would prevent young people from working. We need more young people working from age 16 on-- not fewer!
1
If we do in fact need to update our voter-eligibility criteria, I'm afraid that changing the age may not be the place to start. If only there were a way to measure analytical ability.
I've been appalled over seveal election cycles that people who don't even understand the candidates' policy positions can and do vote -- and that their votes count as much as everyone else's.
I know democracies thrive when more people participate in the process, and I don't want to be elitist, but I see the need for a measurable standard (impossible though it would be to devise and implement) that assesses the capacity to process information. There might be 16 year-olds who would qualify, just as there would also be citizens spanning many older generations who would not.
12
Great. That will never be abused, or tilted to one ideological view or another, or result in a caste system where those who are "smart" enough to vote ensure that those who are too "dumb" never regain the power to challenge them.
The teen years are for learning what democracy is all about and gaining an appreciation for the incredible right it is to vote at 18. Our schools need to double down on history & civics and financial literacy...too many students can opt out or take these classes on-line, now. They should be in classes discussing the issues of the day and practically learning financial competency. This is how we create a nation of tolerance and stability. This must happen before we jump the shark and give the young more responsibility with out the tools to create moderation.
20
I started volunteering to get candidate petitions signed at 15 and I kept going from there. Young people may not have the right to vote, but they certainly are not voiceless. Because an individual's vote typically has little impact, volunteering is probably more rewarding.
8
Why do you think an individual's vote has little impact? Especially in a country with one of the lowest voter participation rates in the world, it has enormous impact.
I'm picking up more a case being made for selective rights, not blanket ones. By both the author and many commentators. Selective rights given thru means testing. Emotional and cognitive. And not just for teens, but most adults.
By no efforts made on any ones part, reaching a certain age doesn't mean a person is qualified or prepared for the many things they are now legally afforded. Being of legal drinking age certainly doesn't mean responsible usage. Same with driving, and very much so with enlisting in the armed services. Reaching 18 is done by default, not effort. No one prepares for the many legal responsibilities of reaching age X or Y. Reaching 18 does not mean an enlistee is ready for the training much less the potential of frontline assignment. Its easily argued - with facts - 18 yo's are not mature enough for such assignments. So why voting at 16?
Many college students cant survive being away from home for the first time, and fail out and go home. And that's just an odd form of school-camp!
If some teens are testing well enough in these studies and grasp the responsibilities of voting, okay let them earn the right. But lets extend the testing to legal aged adults.
At the end of the day paying attention to the needs and issues of teens isnt a voting rights issue, its an apathy one. Apathy on the part our elected employees, and adults in general. Too many demographics are ignored by this Congress, and they can vote. Giving teens the vote wont fix that.
4
I do not support qualifying a citizen to vote by their passing a test about their knowledge of candidates and issues as a prerequisite to voting.
It seems obvious to me that such a process could and would be easily abused.
I have a better idea. Let's have adults just be adults, and quit drafting teenagers for the job.
Let teenagers be the kids they are -- sure, some of them are super well spoken and have great hearts, but their brains are still maturing, and they are still presumably learning from their life experiences, including disappointments and compromises. Trump was the bellweather --we've become a nation that prizes know-nothingism. Just because a snail would make a better president than Trump doesn't mean it has to come to electing teenagers for governor -- as Kansas seems to be considering.
23
I have three local teens who do "scut" work for me, scanning, clipping, etc. I asked each separately who their mayor, representative and senator were. One knew all three, the other two did not. I asked if they looked forward to voting - none of them were interested. I asked if their parents voted - they didn't know. Then I thought maybe this wasn't a fair test, so I asked three random 30-40 yr olds the same questions - again, two out of three did not know and did not vote in the last election. On to people about my age (73): all three knew, all three voted. By the way, if you think it's a disinterest in politics, two of the teenagers couldn't identify the portraits on their money, and have to leave their phones on my desk when they come to work.
13
Nay Young minds have NOT formed a political ideology and are susceptible to hype and advertising as well as their peers. They just are not mature enough or well-informed enough to make a decision so important to maintaining our democratic values. I say this as the most uncouth bloke ever runs the country into the dirt.
12
While I don't agree that 16-year-olds should get the vote, adults are just as susceptible to hype, advertising and fake news as young people are, perhaps even more. If they weren't, our current politicians would never have been elected.
This is just the dumbest idea ever. I remember my kids at age 16.
39
To the commentators who argue against teenage rationality: Teenagers actually have MORE neurons in the pre-frontal cortex (PFCs- commonly known as the rational part of the brain). The reason why it is considered not fully developed is not because it is not fully capable of reason. The reason why it is not fully developed is because the brain is still undergoing a process of neural pruning and myelination, and so the region is not fully EFFICIENT. As we age through adolescence our brain reinforces those neurons that we are using and neglects those neurons that we are not.
It is because of this lack of efficiency that we see a difference in performance in "cold" tasks v. "hot" tasks. When the brain is emotional, feeling peer pressure, under stress, or in a hurry, the adolescent brain is more likely to make decisions without using the PFC because the neural connections between that part of the brain and the parts of the brain responsible for action are not fully efficient, and thus not "quick" enough for split second decisions and not efficient enough to override the more emotional reasoning of other parts of the brain.
Because voting is not a split second decision, adolescents can fully access their PFCs to make reasoned decisions. Furthermore, by allowing young people to vote we would actually be encouraging deep neural pathways of political reasoning to develop in the young, making them more likely to vote in the future.
6
Even the best computer in the world would be incapable of generating accurate decisions if not for the data provided to it. Let’s assume that you are correct, that teenagers have the capability of making reasoned decisions and even curtailing their “hot” impulses if given enough time to ponder before deciding. That doesn’t change the fact that they have a vastly more limited set of knowledge and experience to draw upon when making a political decision such as voting, so are more prone to impulsive or ill informed choices. As with a computer, it is “garbage in, garbage out”. That is not to disparage any teenagers, but rather to suggest that they should be encouraged to accumulate the valuable experience and knowledge that will later make them an informed and competent voter. And no, the indisputable fact that there are much older but equally uninformed/incompetent voters does not affect the validity of my point. In the absence of a competency test there still must be some basis for establishing likely competence and the 18 year old age is a valid yet admittedly imperfect surrogate.
1
Mass murderers are not making split second decisions. They give a great deal of thought to their plan and then carefully enact it. This planning often takes place over a period of months, not seconds or even minutes. So teens who become school shooters are efficiently and calmly carrying out their plans. Thus the hot/cold theory goes out the window and we are left with the issue of whether or not they are mature enough to make decisions that effect the entire nation. I believe that allowing 16 year olds who have never held a job to decide on tax rates is foolish. To allow them to influence complicated matters such as foreign policy could have disasterous results.
I think its clear that the real goal behind this proposal is the expansion of the Democratic Party electorate. It's no secret that young people tend to be more liberal. The electoral college loss by Democrats in 2016 calls for a new strategy going forward, hence this proposal. The selling point is the emotionally charged tug of school shootings. The line is that if you are against lowering the voting age, you are against these victims.
19
And the Democrats will argue lowering the voting age to 16 will favor Republicans. We need to examine the ALL the reasons underlying lowering the voting age. If we focus on the Democrats vs Republicans issue, we will never get to discuss the other reasons to change the voting age.
And the problem with all of that is......? Repulicans have raised voter suppression to an art form. Getting young people invested in their civic responsibility as a way for Democrats to get more votes seems like an honorable goal, not just sound politics.
I'm not sure kids are more liberal or conservative today. I think they are polarized. Just like the rest of us. I support the students stand on guns. It's sad that they had to be the ones to demand gun moderation and that so many adults still can't moderate their views on improving background checks, assault rifles, private sales, and gun ownership restrictions on "at risk" Americans. But I agree with you that this voting idea is downright unnecessary with much bigger fish to fry in the country today. It's the kind of silly NYTs article that gives them a bad rap. It's jumping the shark. Going too far.
I know 16 year olds. None of them have any critical thinking skills and there is no way I would endorse giving them the vote. Candidates would change their campaign to concentrate on Instagram and Snapchat. Fantastic idea. NOT.
28
Critical thinking skills? Considering the current state of electoral politics it appears critical thinking skills are frowned upon.
Wow! What a sweeping generalization, and how sad for you that you don’t know any 16 year olds who can think critically. Luckily, I’m a teacher in a small, economically disadvantaged high school, and I can say that the students there can think critically. Are you sure you are asking these teens the right questions?
I disagree. There are many issues that citizens vote for. Gun control is only one. How knowledgeable would teens be about all of the other items? Of course, I wonder that about many adults as well.
13
And what are you going to do if the majority of people 16-21 vote that they want the same rights under the 2nd Amendment that everyone else has and want to buy the same guns 21+ year olds can buy... and the same beer and whiskey... and cigarettes... and...??
We need to have serious discussions about what age we think people should be trusted as adults and be consistent. Is it 16 when we let them drive? Is it 18 when we let them volunteer and potentially die in the military (or potentially require it under selective service and the draft), and when they can vote? Is it 19 when they can buy cigarettes in most states? Is it 21 when they can buy alcohol? Or is it 26 when we expect them to get their own health insurance? Should we give them the adult right to vote and determine our laws and punishments for those laws if we don't intend to charge them as adults under those laws? Because we are very inconsistent about when we say you are a grown up and can do grown up things. And if we don't trust them with most other grown up rights and responsibilities I'm not sure we should be lowering the age at which they get to vote themselves those privileges.
11
Under the ACA, "children" remain on their parents policy until the age of 26. If we consider a 25 year old too young to insure himself, why would we even think of lowering the voting age?
Rarely would I agree with someone (perhaps) conservative from AL. But you argued your point beautifully, and I agree-- 16 is just too young to vote. The reason the voting age was lowered to 18 was becasue kids were going to the Vietnam war and could not vote for someone committed to end it. Even without a draft, that correllation remains a fact. Further, by 18 many young people are actually fully in "adult life"-- working, paying taxes and rent, completely independent. They have skin in the game that someone 16 does not. That does not mean we should discourage political activism by young people-- on the contrary, their input is desirable and essential. Perhaps, automatic voter registration at age 18 should be instituted, with schools celebrating each new voter!
I would still argue for 16 as the proper age for a driver's license for the same reason-- it is the legal age for employment and for most kids, working is essential. If not financially, for their proper development as societal contributors.
Would the author also change the age of consent for sex with an adult to 16 for the same reason? A lot of people who have been charged with sex abuse would be off the hook. Just how far does this this go? As a 30 year high school teacher, I agree that students can be reflective when WE put them in that situation. The trouble is, that is not where most mid-teens spend their time. They are usually out testing limits and still learning to integrate the calm moments into their thinking. Hot moments still have a much different hold on them. If such a thing were to happen, why don't we change age requirements for federal office? Why wait until someone has become rigid and partisan to elect them president, senator, or representative? Is it discriminatory for insurance companies to charge higher rates for those under the age of 25? I think it is true that teens show some refreshing thinking. I also think maturity matters in making better sense of things, even though aging does not guarantee it. Maybe the better call to action would be for the adults to act more adult, and drop the tribalism and foolish certainty that comes with age.
11
Why not 13? Wasn't Juliet erudite enough to vote? Mr. Steinberg has obviously never taught high school. If he is smart enough, I give him one day. Being suffused with info is not the same as being mature. Not that I'm claiming all 21 year olds are mature.
15
I can tell two things from the comments. 1. Conservatives are very afraid of more people voting. 2. Most of them haven’t read the article and are asking questions it answers above.
2
First, let’s figure out how to get the 18-year olds to vote.
Perhaps 16-year olds are capable of exercising rational judgment, although (even with Vietnam going on), I do not think I was capable of weighing the issues properly.
On the other hand, it seems to me that the adults haven’t been doing such a great job of voting rationally either. So, second, let’s work on non-partisan voter education and the banning of misleading or false campaign advertising. Then, perhaps, we will have informed voters of all ages.
8
I'm 72 years old and as I look at my contemporaries I see too many of them willing to dig in their heels and vote in a way that stalls or reverses progress in order to preserve or return to some idealized version of the past. Older citizens vote in far higher percentages than younger people and often control election results, imposing regressive policies on younger generations.
Maybe it's time to have an upper age limit on voting, much the same way as there is a younger age limit. And much the same way as state DMV's scrutinize older drivers at license renewal time, sometimes taking away driving privileges if the elderly person no longer possesses the skills to drive safely. No one likes this, but in the interest of public safety it is a necessity at times. Maybe this is true of voting as well.
It makes sense to lower the minimum voting age because the younger, newly eligible voters could not possibly do worse than their elders did in 2016.
4
Richard - - I like your post! Thank you! Go Portland - - - One of my favorite cities!
Democrat plan to win the next election:
1) give citizenship and voting rights to people who have entered the country illegally. they will be forever thankful and vote for us for ever.
2) give children the vote. they will think we actually care about their opinion and vote for us, especially since our media and Hollywood celebrities continue to brainwash them on a daily basis.
Good plan.
16
Lowering voting age reminds me of kids voting on American Idol! Whoever's the "cutest" gets the most votes!! Bad idea!!!
15
The progressives KNOW that they can never win an election where the voters have enough experience to recognize when they are being LIED to. Every request for hatred instead of a platform issue drives voters toward the capitalist, patriotic, known-to-succeed Republicans.
The Center for American Progress, devoted to ending the reasons immigrants made America their top choice for centuries, has loudly admitted that the ignorant underclass of Latino immigrants is now REQUIRED for Dems to win.
This is why Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, and more states are allowing - no, ASKING - millions of non-citizens to vote. But lining these dependents up takes time.
Teenagers, on the other hand, are ignorant enough to actually believe the tripe Democrats tell them, and could easily turn patriotic states into progressive ones in any election cycle. Teen stupidity is now a foundation of the Democratic Party.
This is the ONLY reason Dems are grasping at this straw now.
9
Why not? We already sent someone with the selfishness and impulsiveness of a 3 year old to this nation's highest office.
Sadly, 16 year olds are a more thoughtful voting block than the white people of baby boomer age that sent our selfish and impulsive President to the white house.
3
Another step in the transformation of the NewYorkTimes from the "paper of record" into the comic book of record. There is apparently no limit below which this formerly-great publication will sink.
13
Think of something else.
7
Fooey.
4
Ridiculous. Raise everything to 21: smoking, joining the Army, buying a gun and voting.
Why do think a 16 should have a voice?!?
9
You are either out of your mind or a far left liberal. What 16 years old has the intelligence or experience to make an important decision such as voting? You are showing your far liberal bias knowing that the young tend to be liberal, same as illegal immigrants which is why you probably back them to stay in this country at the expense of legal immigrants and all Americans. This type of far left thinking has always been a disaster for the country, the states or the city where far left liberalism was in control. You think banning guns will make a difference according to your cartoon. If someone wants to get a gun, they will always find a way. What about the rights of the 60+% of Americans that own guns responsibly and like to hunt or do target practice? Don't they have rights? What if we banned your typewriter (not a bad idea).
10
I think an IQ and general knowledge quiz should be the prerequisite to voting , not age. There are millions of uninformed, irrational ,brain washed, ignorant adults who vote - thats why you have Trump. Age has little to do with it.
5
Everyone should have to pass a civics test equivalent to the citizenship test (in English) to be able to vote at all. A 16-year-old who can pass such a test should be able to vote.
1
Are you for real? 16? Yeah and let them drink in bars too at 16. No way! Do you know or see any 16 year olds? They’re knuckle heads god bless em! Let me ask this, are you 15?
8
Why not 5, then???
8
Another step in the transformation of the NewYorkTimes from the "paper of record" into the comic book of record. There is apparently no limit below which this formerly-great publication will not sink.
4
NYT needs to reconsider its op-ed selection policy after the publication of this very weak piece. It's wrong for all the reasons others have listed, and display zero familiarity with 16 year olds. It won't happen of course, and shouldn't: my concern is that people with curatorial power inside my beloved NYT deemed it fit to print.
7
We talk down to kids too much. Look at all these comments as proof. When I was a teen it meant the world to me when adults gave me some responsibility and treated me with respect. I would have LOVED to vote in local elections, to have learned in social studies what each office on the ballot does, to have organized and attended debates at the school then made an informed decision. The neuroscience quoted in the article totally rings true to me.
3
When you and i were young, they actually taught social studies and civics. We learned why we have our system of government and the difference between the House and the Senate. We learned about current events, without learning the teacher's voting preferences.
Today, these subjects are not taught in school. 16 year olds have no knowledge of our history, our government, or current events. They are, however, quite likely to know how their teacher votes, and have been told that voting for another party makes one a fool (or a racist, or other comdemnation). This opinion will not be backed up with facts, just emotional claims.
Therefore, the student is left with no knowledge other than the certain fact that they had better vote as their teacher does or risk being ridiculed in front of their peers.
Are you out of your mind? As a parent of two children, one 16 and one 15, I cant imagine them voting. Illegals, kids, lets let anyone vote...as long as its democratic right?
13
This is so typical of a knee-jerk reaction of the shooting in Florida by the New York Times. Teenagers are emotional, the frontal lobe isn't even fully developed, we don't need them making decisionson who's going to be president of the United States.
Stay in school and get an education so you can get out and get a job and be a productive part of society, we don't need them voting right now
10
Are you crazy? They are raising the age to buy a gun to 21 because they are not responsible enough to do that at 18 but you want them to vote at 16? That’s the stupidest idea I have ever heard. They can barely go to school, know nothing about the world, are generally irresponsible and you want them to help decide the fate of the country?
7
I would like to see it raised to 21. They can then get a job, pay taxes, smoke recreational pot, drink red bull and vodka and buy a gun all at the same time. This will help the democratic party win elections until they get married and have kids by the age of 28. Then they will be afraid of big government, high taxes, rehab, guns, social media and the impact of drinking too much alcohol. At that point they will become independents like 50% of the US voters! Then at the age of 31 they will likely vote for the first time!
7
This is all so damn predictable. Would the author feel the same way if polls found 16-17 year olds to be more conservative than average. I think we all know the answer.
8
This is the kind of idea that only a professor of psychology at a major university living in the academic bubble could or would advocate. My primary reason for opposing this incredibly unrealistic idea is this..lets not ruin those last 2 years of them not having to care about the stupidity of the adult political world by politicizing their teenage years anymore than has already been done. To want that is selfish and an attempt to exploit them and how they would be expected to vote. Normal kids that age dont give a damn about politics nor should they.
5
They can drive at 16...look at the cost of insuring a16 year old driver.
2
Speaking of 18 year olds in 1971, the "old enough to die but not for xxxxx" was used to rationalize lowering the drinking age. Why stop at 16?
2
Do you know any 16 year olds? Not the merit scholars, but the other 95%? Have you talked to one for 10 minutes? Then you would know, then you wouldknow.
9
Kids of that age don't have fully grown brains (until age 24, actually). They start smoking tobacco more than any other group and have the most drunk and drugged driving by far, of any age group. We already have proved that a lot of voters have poor judgment. You are suggesting we add a lot more of them to the list. This suggestion is an insult to our country.
7
Classic argument from the Socialist crowd. They all know that the younger you are the more you are susceptible to influences from irrational arguments. Lets not forget about all of the stupid things that we did when we were younger and much less wiser. Just because an idea pops into your head does not mean it's feasible.
9
Best thing read today, great idea
Sorry, but I know far more indolent, ignorant 16-20 year olds than I do these youngsters touted as worthy of voting rights. We have enough ignorance showing up in the voting booth already. No need to add more. We'll only get more ignorance in the White House and Congress. Sad.
7
The high schoolers who are speaking out are bright, articulate, and capable. They will go on to become leaders in the country, just as they are leaders among other young people.
Should they be voting at 16? Not. Before anyone jumps me for being old, cranky, and set in my ways, let me elaborate.
Science has established pretty convincingly that the teenage brain being immature is the reason for the impulsiveness and poor decision making that is so common among youth. We already have too many adults who make decisions about how to vote based on emotion, or worse.
Until one Donald J. Trump came on the scene, it was generally conceded that the country should be run by the adults. We should go back to that model.
Have we always done a good job? No. Are these young people capable of delivering important and accurate analysis to us? Certainly, without doubt. They should continue to do so, to help us to make the right decisions on this and other matters. We should listen. But we should not call them adults.
Young people who do have the right to vote do so at far lower rates than do older voters. Steinberg argues that the practice of not voting becomes ingrained. Does he want to train even more youth in the practice of not voting?
6
16? That is about crazy as allowing 18 year olds to fight in war... Oh never mind!
1
Leftists want this as they seek to manipulate the young to vote emotionally for more socialism. Because socialism has worked so well over the world.
This is insane. 16 year olds are minor. They can’t own real property. They can’t join the military. They are minors.
6
Several things, first I am a leftist with some rightest tendencies, we all have them as it is rare opponents do not agree on anything, plus manipulate and persuade are not the same thing.
You are correct that socialism has worked well around the world. Most first world countries have health, education and other social policies that are superior to the United States. And by the way, our fire, police, armed services and most teaching hospitals are all social programs, would you have Monsanto run them?
Thirdly, I agree with you again, that 16 year olds are not mature enough to have the vote, give them a couple more years to develop their opinions.
2
16 to vote, 18 to serve in the Military, 21 to drink a beer. Something is off.
6
Raise vote to 21
Our military is all volunteer
I bet 2000 out of 3000 teenagers, locked up in SuperMax Douglas HS, a 40 acre campus, with 10 buildings and armed guards and metal detectors thought to themselves:
"Theres a shooter over in Bldg 2....great.....we'll get a couple of days off from this place."
And all those teenagers, who somehow managed to pay their own way 300 miles up to Tallahassee(?).....a fun field trip...and another day away from school.
4
You are going to vote to raise my taxes and you aren't old enough to pay taxes because you are still in high school? I don't think so.
10
I would go further: if the voting age limit is not lowered or removed completely (parents getting an extra vote for each child) than remove it for anyone older than 4 years short of the median age. Why can 85y.o. pull the lever and 15 y.o. can’t? Both will only understand some or none of the issues, but that is true for Joe Blow from mainstreet as well.
1
If 16 year olds are responsible to vote, they should be responsible to drink, smoke, drive a car, go to war, buy a gun. Liberal "logic" on display here.
4
Did you even read the article? That's some pretty hot reasoning! This is a thoughtful piece from a very venerable and respected expert on adolescent behavior and development. That includes the adolescent brain, which is a very complex and fascinating subject. For someone like me who knows what he is talking about, this is a very compelling idea, not liberal logic, it is an educated and informed position! Since they will have to live with the voting decisions the longest, why shouldn't young people who are capable of abstract thinking and reasoning, reading and sorting through complex information and ideas have a say in matters that will affect them for the rest of their long lives?
1
No. 16-year-olds should not have the vote. Let’s talk neuroscience and the study of human development. Children are still children. And while too many stupid adults vote (witness our electoral college winning President) they are still adults (God help us). Now, if the 18 to 30 year olds would get out and vote.....
5
Another half-baked progressive idea that is just another excuse - like the hoax of voter suppression - to gin up more democratic voters. Sad!
7
This is about the worst idea I have ever heard in this newspaper and that is an incredibly low bar to clear. My guess is that author does not have a 16 year old son. If he did, he would not be recommending this move.
6
Why not 12?
2
lowering votingage to 16 ... be careful what you wish for
3
A most interesting proposal. I guess the argument against allowing folks younger than (whatever) to vote stems from thinking they are not mature and knowledgeable about politics (something than can easily be said about many adults, witness the absurdity of taking demagogue Trump seriously). Perhaps this is one more reason to teach civics, and politics and a brief summary of the politicians trying to attract our vote...as early as possible, certainly while in school, so we can discriminate better what is promised...vs what is delivered. As of now, our politicians, especially those in power, have betrayed us over and over. Just look at their indifference while students are being mowed down,and killed, by the absurd profusion of guns, and politicians prostituting themselves to the N.R.A., and refusing to do what is right and demanded by most people.
1
Open up the mental hospitals!
I refer you to watching "Wild In The Streets"; Barry Shear's 1968 dark satire about a millionaire Rock Star who is elected president-of-the-united-states after the voting age is lowered to 16 and then to ... 14.
Leonard Maltin wisely described it in his Movie Guide as 'overrated by some critics but, nonetheless enjoyable on a nonthink level.'
1
Extending the right to vote to people with brains that are not full developed (please, no jokes about voters who support one political party or another) is not a good idea. Impulsiveness, unreasonable risk taking, incomplete education (again please, no jokes) in voters is something that should be avoided.
If anything, raise the voting age back to 21, and limit the franchise to people who subscribe to at lease one pulp-based news source (joke).
3
It has been well established that teens have fully matured brains at that age and are perfectly capable of making well thought out and reasoned decisions. Yeah, right.
With all due respect, that’s a really stupid idea.
6
You all know very well that you didn't know diddly when you were 16. And most of you know that you inherit most of your politics from your parents at that age.
6
Yes, inject more hormones into the electoral process!
2
OMG, we have kids that can’t get out of the house until they are over 30 because of delayed development. They are in “emerging adulthood“ thanks to helicopter parents. While there may be exceptions, I see more evidence that the voting age should be raised back to 21 than lowered. Same goes for military service BTW.
5
At 16 they will most likely vote how their teacher tell them to. Also if the brain does not fully develop until much later why would we trust them with a vote. We don't trust them with guns and barely with cars.
4
You've lost your mind, Steinberg. When folks are old enough to invest in their own homes and earn a living and their brains have matured, say age 21, let them vote.
6
We should lower the voting age because young voters tend to vote Democratic, before they have discovered that there is such a thing as the real world.
Felons, people without IDs, people under 18, and people pretending to be citizens. The Democrats need NO other voters! (smile).
5
This idea is dumb on the surface, and just gets dumber the deeper you go. Regardless of all the pseudo-intellectual blather about hot and cold cognition, the discrepancies the author cites in, for example, allowing driving but not drinking, are the results of adult judgment. We would create a massive bloc of voters >actually able< to reduce the legal ages of drinking, gambling, smoking, sexual consent...to whatever. If, as the author states, "Studies of cold cognition have shown that the skills necessary to make informed decisions are firmly in place by 16," what are the implications for juvenile justice, particularly capital punishment? Military enrollment..."Hey kid, you can vote to send your neighbors to war, but you don't have to go because you're too young." Maybe the Professor never had a 16 year old. Perhaps he never even was one. 16-year-olds are children.
6
I think the age should be raised to 21. I have 2 kids in HS, 15 and 17, and a 24 year old. most of the 16 and 17 year olds I know are not yet capable of the necessary level of critical analysis to be able to make an informed, rational, uninfluenced decision. so instead they will vote what they hear every day from the liberal media and Hollywood celebrities who are drilling their opinions into these kids brains. no thanks.
if you think they are capable adults at 16, then you have to allow them the rest of the adult privileges that go along. allow them to drink, drive a car with no restrictions, join the military, get married, live on their own, pay taxes, leave school, and purchase and own guns. sound like a good plan to you?
7
I’ve searched my soul and come up with, and after weighing the good and bad, I’ve decided that, that, yes! Let ‘em vote. Let them get accustomed to participating in our democratic system. They’re, well, not to be underestimated.
They’re our greatest treasure and they’re smart. Let ‘em vote. Absolutely!!
As a former high school debate coach, the questions and comments of the Florida students did not surprise me one bit. That’s what debate programs teach—confidence, probity, and context. Visit any local high school debate event and you will witness this round after round.
As a former high school English teacher who graded thousands of sophomore essays, I cannot support lowering the voting age to sixteen. These kids are still learning to think. They are still learning the structure of an argument—from claim, credible evidence, and reasoning, to qualifier, exceptions and backing (to use Toulmin’s model). They’re still learning to recognize logical fallacies. Despite front-loading all this, students still have dificulty avoiding logical mis-steps. They’re inconsistent—they’re still learning.
And equally important, they’re still developing the necessary background on which to base an argument. Most high school students have yet to tap into current events. (Contemporary World Problems doesn’t happen until senior year.)
Apparently the Florida students took Debate and studied gun control last fall. They are the exception, not the rule. And that’s just one issue in the myriad that face us each day.
Until CWP and Debate become required 9th grade classes, nationwide, we need to hold off allowing 16 year olds the vote.
3
Don't ever use "when it comes to" in an article.
I disagree......the voting age should be raised to at least 65.....who else has heard all the vacant promises and the lies and the double talk? Senior citizens, that's who.................
7
How did you get to 16 from 18? What happened to 17?
1
The only reason so called adults want those under 21 to vote is because they feel that those youth can be influenced much easier. Is there a reason for that? I was told or read somewhere that a human brain has not developed completely before 21. That may be the reason for the push
2
The voting age should be increased to 25.
4
Are you kidding? Notwithstanding the very good work of the Florida school students, a voting age of 25 makes more sense. The intellectual maturity of a typical millennial is not exactly inspiring....
And while we're at it, boys should not drive cars until at least age 21. This is one category where gender discrimination makes great sense. [Insurance companies understand this.]
Further, there should be a common age for smoking, drinking, and joining the US armed services. No beer, no tour of duty in Afghanistan.
5
The issue is not judgment or cognitive capacity. Rather, it is knowledge. I strongly suggest that the voting age be at least 21 years, enough time for most people to graduate from college. Our world, from the dynamics of the small town to the entire planet, is very complicated and getting more complicated. It is easy to make a case that a 16 year old may possess the knowledge and sophistication of the average American voter. What does that tell us about the misgovernment that is all around us? Why would we want to sustain that? Of course, not everyone goes to college, but why handicap our democracy unnecessarily?
1
Teenagers need to learn first-hand the difficulties that Republican lawmakers have legislated into the voting process. It ain't easy, young people. Begin with the ancient, mindless Tuesday voting (one thing the GOP didn't cause), and check out the documents requirements. Prepare yourself for an inquisition before you get a ballot. After you successfully vote, go home wondering if someone in Moscow tampered with your ballot. Perhaps you and your friends will feel the outrage that eludes your elders and force sane voting, kinda like you file and pay your income taxes: by mail or online. Caveat: Republicans, cloaked in the flag, will fight you with a vengeance.
I am unconvinced that sixteen year olds are competent to vote, too little life experience.
Better to encourage eightteen year olds to vote.
1
Here's a better idea- let's limit voting to those who know enough basic civics to pass the citizenship exam and pay taxes.
Eliminating the votes of the ignorant would help prevent dumb policies from gaining ground. Admittedly this needs to be done in a race neutral manner.
Limiting suffrage to taxpayers is consistent with the idea of the consent of the governed. This eliminates the problem of 47% of the public paying $0 in federal income taxes, while electing people who promise to steal more from the 53% who do (or the 1% who pay 37% of the bill) to give more "free" stuff to the unproductive.
2
There's a reason why, in most states, a person cannot rent a car until they are 25 years old, and why 18-24 year old males pay higher auto insurance premiums than their female counterparts. It's all based on number-crunching risk assessment, and those statistics are telling indicators of maturity level. Maybe instead of considering lowering the age to vote, we should be considering seriously what it is about young adult males that make them more prone to violent behavior - whether it is shooting up schools, sexually assaulting women,
2
If anything we should raise to vote to 30
and raise the age to drive to 21
and the age to drink to 25.
You really want High School Sophomores to decide anything
of any importance in our Society ?
3
Another attempt from the left to grab more power. If they lower the age to16 then they should server in the arm forces and so on. Argentina allowing 16 years old to vote was to get more votes to the left in exchage for subsidies and the number of voters was the lower of all the ages group.
3
No, the voting age should be zero. Seriously.
Aren’t “all men created equal”? Aren’t children American citizens who deserve equal representation, just like adults?
Indeed, they have much MORE at stake in electing officials favoring their long-term interests than their parents. They have many more effected-years at stake. By being totally politically powerless, they are structurally, democratically discriminated against.
At 18, or 16, Americans can vote themselves. But before that, each child should also be registered to vote and their parents do the their actual voting, voting in the best interests of the child in their opinion. One person, one vote. (With two parents, they could alternate years.)
We have a stupid bias in our “democracy,” biasing towards short term exploitation and against maximizing the long term welfare. Our true democratic interests would be much better represented if the interests of our children and their futures were properly, proportionally, represented.
Give babies the vote!
It’s more than gun safety. The young face great insecurity in their future careers, security and financial well being compared to their grandparents’ generation. High college tuition, lower pay, less job security, no guaranteed pension, high health care costs. Little chance of joining a union to protect them.
The Parkland students are poised and articulate, able to “weigh pros and cons, reason logically with facts.” What a contrast to the NRA’s hysterical, paranoid leaders, La Pierre and Loesch --- living in La La Land and emotionally hot, though much older.
But most Americans of all ages, not just high schoolers lack power to influence their elected lawmakers on guns and on other crucial issues affecting their lives.
This is proved by polls showing that majority opinion cannot be translated into political action---on most issues---Gun safety, also jobs, taxes, health care, govt regulations on monopoly corporations, education funding, and big money distorting our politics.
Yes lower the voting age to 16, and the kids will mature faster, seeing how politics affects issues they care about. But also let's talk about reforming campaign finance, to the majority a voice, as wealthy megadonors’ donations soar with each election, shutting out the peoples’ will.
Richard Painter’s 2012 NYT op ed ‘The NRA’s Protection Racket’ applies to more than guns. The racket is disguised as Free Speech and American Freedom. What a scam. We need cool reevaluation.
1
What a laugh. We should raise the voting age to 35 and exclude all women form voting.
Do we think people who don’t have the sense not to eat laundry detergent are sensible enough to vote?
4
For the same reasons we don’t let 16 year olds serve on juries or hold them culpable to adult standards when they commit a crime, they should not vote. The reason given here is specious. Children ride and die in cars, too, yet that is irrelevant.
2
The voting age should be raised to 25, the age at which the brain has finally finished growing.
2
Great idea!
Another cohort of eligible voters who don't vote. Just what this country needs.
Turnout in the country is generally abysmal; turnout for the 18-29 crowd the worst of the age categories.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
"Cold cognitive abilities are those we use when we are in a calm situation, when we are by ourselves and have time to deliberate and when the most important skill is the ability to reason logically with facts. Voting is a good example of this sort of situation."
Voting is a good example of this sort of situation?! Am I living in the same country as these authors? If there were ever definitive proof that voters do not base their decisions on facts and logical reasoning, the current occupant of the white house would have to be Exhibit A. Wasn't there just another NYT article this week about how for most voters, the most important voting impetus is "loathing"? If we want more voters to vote with their guts rather than with their heads, then sure, lower the voting age to 16.
Why not? As we see with the survivors of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the comments being made by students are not only coherent and insightful they are more thought-provoking than many Florida politicians, in particular Rick Scott and Marco Rubio. Both are embarrassments, one on the State level the other on the Federal. For the years they've held elected office there hasn't been a peep from either about the easy accessibility of getting guns. Now, all of sudden, they're concerned? Balderdash. What they and politicians who are in the pockets of the N.R.A. deserve is not a "listening tour". They need to be booted out on their be-hinds. We've already heard their views on gun control. They're for it. Until threatened with their cushy jobs. Too little, too late.
DD
Manhattan
Maybe all voters--Americans especially-- should pass SATs!
Oh right!--academic rights are based on merit. Voting rights are not based on merit, but age--intelligence, knowledge, competence, prejudices, biases, phobias don't matter for politics--especially American electoral politics.
And wouldn't it be bad discrimination to allow them to vote, but not run for office?
Was that why the founders created the Cabinet? Is that why Civil Service and Military offices are not elected?
Judges too--except for bizarre cases--maybe those jurisdictions will soon democratize physicians, dentists, engineers as well as lawyers, accountants and professors.
Indeed decide every issue by referenDUM.
Just because Florida high schoolers are more knowledgeable about their own safety than most Congressmen and women; it does not follow that they should run the government.
Hmm--make SAT testing required for candidates. That's better. Presidents too.
I’m glad the teen angers in Florida and elsewhere are marching against guns but no I don’t think we should lower the voting age to 16. There seems to be a disturbing trend to throw away all sorts of rules and regulations to get to where “we” want to go. For Republicans it’s the one person one vote rule and for Dems it seems to be the age reqjremenr and in the case of Mayor DeBlasio, the citizenship requirement. My suggestion is that we work hard to change the minds of the people who can vote, get them to vote and punish lawmakers who refuse to follow the desires for he American people. As a number of recent votes by Republicans in state legislatures have show this week, the loyalties of Republican legislators run not to their constituents young and old but to the NRA. The same can be said for members of Congress.
1
In the age of young people eating Tide Pods and testing how long one can keep his arm on a heating-up electric stove burner, as well as being unable or unwilling to work while in high school and college, this proposal seems — generously put — counterintuitive. In fact, *raising* the voting age back to 21 would seem more in line with proposed gun laws, current drinking laws and frankly, widespread evidence of this generation’s lack of maturity and inability to accept the differences between fact and feelings.
5
There is a lot more diversity of thought among 16-year-olds than the author acknowledges here, including opinions that clash entirely with those of the kids agitating for gun control.
1
In 1971, in response to the drafting of eighteen-year-olds, the voting age was reduced from twenty-one because eighteen- year-olds were considered mature enough to be sent off to war and kill or be killed in the service and name of the United States of America. Now, sixteen-year-olds are psychologically determined to be sufficiently matured to make political decisions. Since the Republican Amendment ( formerly the Second) puts their lives in harms way, it stands to reason and justice they deserve to have the right and power to vote as citizens.//////////
Another commentator suggested a reductio ad absurdum argument to lower the voting age to two. Although that is absurd, all my experience with two-year-olds convinces me they are truly brilliant beyond their years. They’re just not cynical enough yet to trust them with a ballot.
"The proposal to lower the voting age to 16 is motivated by today’s outrage that those most vulnerable to school shootings .."
This sentence in a nutshell pinpoints the hysterical reaction to the tragedy that has occurred -- and will continue to occur -- as long as citizens have easy access to firearms. It's the social media mentality that one must, just must, react to any situation or idea that seems to threaten our safety. Yet being a responsible voting ADULT requires more than just kangaroo-court style sympathizing and emoting. There is no valid reason to lower the voting age to 16. The current voting age is 18 (at least it was when I was boy). Granted, we "adults" have made a sorry mess of the social fabric of America; but that is no reason to make a blanket statement that we should hand the running of the country over to children.
Put aside for a moment the simplistic bumper sticker philosophy reflected in reader replies such as "Old enough to drive, old enough to vote". Because the column does raise a broader and incredibly important question, alluded to by several others, that deserves a full discussion. Specifically, what should be the criteria for establishing that someone is qualified/entitled to vote? Some have suggested that the simple attainment of a certain age is neither fair nor alone sufficient. Some 16 year olds may objectively be "qualified" while some older individuals may not be.
It can be reasonably argued that the right to vote should require some level of competence and awareness, regardless of specific political ideology. After all, do we really want a system controlled by incompetent uninformed voters? (Resist for a moment any inclination to launch into cheap political pejoratives about our country's current status or the recent election; the topic is serious and deserves better.)
But how could any criteria be fairly selected, measured and integrated into the process of qualifying voters. There rightfully would be much hesitation and discomfort surrounding the prospect of concluding that an individual is unfit to vote. But we already make those necessary distinctions elsewhere. We protect the population by requiring demonstrated driving knowledge and competence before issuing a license to drive. Same for barbers, brokers and many others. Isn't voting even more important?!
1
If 16 year-olds were in favor of prohibiting abortion we wouldn't be reading this.
10
This is an idea whose time has come.
Can't believe no one has mentioned the movie "Wild in the Streets"
Voting age was lowered to 14, everyone over 30 sent to camps and kept continually on LSD...
2
Clearly the author has had limited exposure to the thought of children.
11
Shorter Laurence Steinberg: 16 year olds agree with me so give them the right to vote.
4
And it just gets worse and worse.
Every community has a couple of 'elite' (god, how I hate that word) high schools.
And the children fortunate enough to get into one of them may very well have the cognitive skills and emotional bearing to make a responsible vote in an election.
Now let's consider the non elite schools.
Spit in a 5 mile an hour wind. Hit a dozen students. Ask each - how much is 17 x 32. See how long it take for each kid to answer, if at all.
Same 5 mile an hour wind - different kids - name the last book, of your own choosing, that you read from cover to cover. Who is your favorite author?
Same 5 mile an hour wind - who was FDR? Woodrow Wilson? Lyndon Johnson?!! Tell us something about each?
No doubt the author attended an elite high school himself, and his children almost certainly do.
If anything, the voting age should be raised. But 18 year olds willing to get their heads blown off in stupid wars really should be allowed to vote, clueless or not.
4
Old enough to vote
Old enough to go to war
Old enough to go to war
Old enough to smoke
Old enough to drink beer
Lets set one age
We'll call that the age of majority
After that point you're a full citizen
You can vote
You can drink
You can smoke
You can be called upon to go to war for your nation
You can decide how you want to provide for your personal defense
I don't particularly care what age we choose
but lets just set one age point.
1
They'll get their chance.
1
It would be lunacy letting children - whose idea of real world events is Keeping up with the Kardashians - decide the fate of the free world....
4
I think 18 is an appropriate voting age - it works well for the rest of the developed world - but the condescending old voters in this comment section ridiculing the idea are likely less informed than most of these teenagers.
Someone who is 90 for the most part has far less cognitive functioning and political knowledge than someone who is 17. Once you reach your late 20s you experience a steady cognitive decline for the rest of your life, so all of these "stupid millennials" likely have a higher IQ than you do.
It's also worth pointing out that it was old people who made Clinton the Democratic nominee over Sanders, and then it was old people again who then elected Donald Trump. Not surprising given the intelligence differences. So spare me your condescension towards young people.
Thank God for old people; otherwise we'd be well on our way to totalitarian socialism. Wisdom, as opposed to the ability to take an IQ test, tends to increase with age. I'd be okay with saying people who can't show a basic understanding of political issues shouldn't vote, regardless of their age, but it's impossible to police.
1
Yeah voting, age of consent, drinking and perhaps gun buyer age.
1
Well, I called my congressman and he said "whoa!"
"I'd like to help you son but you're too young to vote"
Sometimes I wonder what I'm a gonna do
But there ain't no cure for the summertime blues
- Eddie Cochran / Jerry Neal Capehart
Does anyone think this author would have written this column if the Parkland students were pushing hard for less gun control?
10
Calm cognition is different form hot, but that does not mean they have developed long-term judgment skills. But if that is what we are looking for, we would raise the voting age to 30.
4
Since many in that age group are being maimed or killed by other citizens who have mishandled a government granted privilege, maybe they should have the right to vote.
1
And babies get bad healthcare sometimes, so I guess they should vote too.
2
'In medieval society, the idea of childhood did not exist.' ~ Philippe Ariès (21 July 1914 – 8 February 1984)
In 2018, most Americans have a sentimental, Disneyfied view of young persons. They've heard a pop psychologist pontificate grandly on Fox that human brains do not mature until we are twenty-five, and nod their heads sagely. They are now experts on child development.
Given Americans' love of junk food and sugar drinks that makes so many American kids obese by the time they're entitled to vote, if their parents' equal love of guns have allowed them to survive that long, it's clear that most American parents are too irresponsible to have the right to vote intelligently in the best interests of their children.
America would be a better country if the right to vote were taken away from incompetent parents, who insist on infantilising their progeny, and transferring their votes to their long-suffering offspring whose best interests are being jeopardised by the uniformed choices of their ignorant seniors.
Sixteen-year-olds could hardly make worse election choices than the clueless, vindictive and misogynistic 2016 electorate who handed the reins of power to the avaricious Trump clan.
3
If you're on the left, it's always better to have Big Brother make choices for you.
3
And If you're on the right then you always want to deprive others of their right to vote and to make their own choices.
Actually I think that any age is fine, but I would like to suggest
that anyone who voted for Trump really ought to sit out the
next few elections. Being a child may not be disqualifying, but
having voted for our national disgrace as president really has to
be.
5
I agree, but I would apply that principle to anyone who voted for HRC, a disgrace in her own right and whom Democrats forced on us in a rigged primary system, a clear sign of what would follow had she won. Come to think of it, the only people who should be able to vote are the ones with the sense not to vote last round. That should fairly apply your principle to both tribes.
2
Children start school at 5. Why shouldnt they also have a say? Lower the voting age to 5. Impeccable logic.
5
We need civics classes at every level of education along with automatic voter registration. We need to drill on voter participation more often than active shooter training and encourage everyone to vote
Complacency and ignorance bought us this self dealing, corrupt administration
Participation will get rid of it
1
Unfortunately I believe that there are many 16 year olds who are too ignorant to uninformed to have the power to vote. Many 16 year olds are too immature to have the power to decide who runs our country. They should be given the chance to live out in the real world before they are given the opportunity to vote.
Students, at age 16, are too heavily influenced by their teachers and parents to be able to make an informed political decision, they should be given the chance to be away from the influences of their parents, teachers, and even away from social media before they make these decisions that will affect our entire country.
3
The author makes a good argument for lowering the voting age, and explains the difference between cold and hot cognitive ability. I'm not totally convinced, but neither am I going to ridicule his recommendation. When I watch some of these yahoos in Congress and the White House a lot of 16 year olds look pretty dang good by comparison. We have someone cognitively younger than 16 as President after all.
6
if anything the age to vote and join the service should be raised to 21.
6
The skills needed for honorably serving and those needed for intelligently voting are quite different.
1
There is no skill necessary to serve honorably. The point of taking them so young when most are still really children is their immaturity and gullibility.
This might be the single stupidest idea that I have ever seen in the NYT. I'm tempted to say "just look at the countries that permit 16 year olds to vote - QED."
Do you really think that there are not enough liberal, motivated voters in Massachusetts and Connecticut to pass gun laws? Allowing 16 year olds to vote would NOT have any effect on gun laws, which are substantially driven by the Second Amendment and cultural issues in certain states. What it would do is open up another group of easily swayed voters with no real world experience or judgment. The kind of people who think that getting news from Facebook and social media is a good idea.
Thankfully, this has zero chance of going anywhere beyond the comics page they label as "op-ed" these days.
6
You know, I'd consider it as long as they could prove their worth by writing a 10,000 word essay on the American revolution and the formation of our constitution and bill of rights. Come to think of it, not a bad requirement for all voters.
4
Hey, if prosecutors can pretty much at-will get minors tried as adults, why not give kids voting rights?
1
Trump has demonstrated that he is younger than 16. What do we do about that?
1
Yea, right. Our "progressives" just know that 16 year olds are easy to manipulate, and they own our failing education system. It would intensify indoctrination at our schools - we don't need that.
5
Similar to how our "conservatives" have discovered how easy it is to indoctrinate poorly educated and unsophisticated rubes with TV propaganda (Fox) and talk radio.
18 is considered old enough to die for your country. So why shouldn't they be able to shape how the conflicts that might cause them to die before they get there? Old enough to die for country but not old enough to buy a drink?
1
I confess, I did not read the article.
Your title was wrong enough.
Children and teens matter, but their brain matter does not mature sufficiently to make adult decisions at that age. Sixteen?? Voting? Yikes!
Smart kids matter to the culture and shape the way it moves. But a kid of sixteen knows nothing about what happens when people turn eighty-six.
Lowering the voting age is a bad idea.
Cognitive development aside, I would be far more comfortable with an IQ test determining voting rather than age
1
Then you'd have to lower the age of consent to 16...
The age to buy a gun should be raised to 35, but the age to vote should be lowered to 16. Got it.
1
18 is old enough to die (military) therefore old enough to vote. Not so for 16...
Yet
1
Democratic system based on voting is a form of popularity contest and reality show. The real issue is why perpetuate such a cruel joke on the citizens?
BTW: One assumes Laurence Steinberg is a "tenured" professor at Temple University. Should teenage college students be allowed to vote who get tenure positions?
2
Make it age 65......I am now 87 and I am even not too sure about the maturity of those young people at 65......
1
Jeez, did any of the commenters in the "NYT Picks" actually read this piece? The author is one of the foremost experts on adolescence and has spent a career understanding young people, so the comments trying to say he doesn't understand teens are just silly. He makes a strong argument that their thinking *is* developed enough to vote by 16 (a cold cognition skill), even if they're *not* developed enough to handle a gun (which would be used in a hot cognitive situation). I think this is a terrific idea, and a well reasoned one.
73
"Cold cognition" isn't the right barometer. Life experience matters.
1
Lower the age for voting yet raise the age for everything else?? I think Mr. Steinberg is choosing outcome rather than logic. Voting at 16, military at 18, adult court at 18, drinking at 21, owning all firearms at 21 (as some people want)...You like voting at 16 because you like the outcome, but for other purposes, you wanted to be protected from young people until they reach 21.
In may US states a child can be married as young as 12. Where's the outrage? Where are the petitions to Congress that a 12 year can't make such a decision? Of course the child doesn't, it's made for her by sick, hypocritical adults, who can vote.
1
Maybe raise it to 21.
1
Never going to happen. I say raise the voting age to 25 along with the minimum age to buy a gun
3
If you're going to let a 16 year old vote, then you should let every 16 year old charged with a crime be tried as an adult.
4
As a long-time HS teacher, I agree that most 16-year-olds are capable of the kind of reasoning to be informed voters, at least as much as many of those over 18.
However, as long as the Republicans are in power in Congress and the states, it's a non-starter. A constitutional amendment needs 2/3 of each house, plus 3/4 of the states. Since the Republicans know that the young vote skews progressive, they will block it faster than you can say "NRA".
2
Progressives are terrified of people who grow up and need to offset them with immature child voters.
1
My view is just the opposite posited in this article. To vote should be a privilege not a right. A civics test should be given to every citizen, ok, starting at 16. Every voter should have a fundamental grasp of the English language. Know the the 3 branches of government. Know whom their elected officials are. And not vote for someone just because the candidate, looks like them, sounds like them, etc. Juries are chosen more carefully then selecting 8 or 12 random people. The electorate should like wise be vetted. Is who our elected officials are any less important than the guilt or innocence of someone standing trial?
2
Per this argument, children should be able to vote as soon as they are old enough to go to school. That would mean that pre-kindergarteners should be given the vote.
Sixteen-year olds do not have the maturity to make rational decisions about voting. The last thing this nation needs is more voters who lack the maturity to make rational decisions about our public life. Voters also need experience - some time within which they've been exposed to politicians and politics and have some sense of how that game is played. Eighteen may be too young.
3
Research from neurobiologists about brain development is being used to justify less stringent punishments for violent crimes for teens or even older young people than for older adults. The argument is that important parts of their brains are not yet fully developed. If that is their direction that science is leading us why would we lower the voting age?
3
Because the young are easily led by teachers who are overwhelmingly "Progressive."
1
Lowering the voting age to 16 because of one issue lowers the voting age of all other issues. The logic of this argument would extend to (even) younger people. After all, children in elementary and middle schools also care about guns in schools; why can they not have the right to vote? And it would extend the right to vote on other issues in which independent voting is doubtful. And it would lead ultimately to lowering the age of adulthood. Do we really believe that 16- and 17-year olds, much less "tweeners," have the maturity to enter into contracts, etc.?
The reason for a voting age limit is not that people have an interest on this or that issue, but that they can be presumed to have the maturity to vote on all issues. Lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 in the Vietnam War era reflected a belief that those old--i.e., mature--enough to serve in the armed services should be presumed mature enough to vote. The motive was not a special-interest/issue consideration.
1
I was a 60 year old, having lived through many eras where outrage has or should have been the proper response to America’s moral lapses - I feel it is essential to fully empower our youth to express their political beliefs at the polls. Yes, I remember how intemperate I was at times when I was at 16. I also remember how thoughtful and reasoned I was at other times. Might this change be disruptive? The answer is it will most certainly will be disruptive - which all things considered, is exactly the type of healthy disruption our political system needs to counter the pathological (tribal) disruption the Trump ascendancy has wrought. Two cases in point - the Syrian Genicide and the very real Russian Cyberwar on our country. Where’s the outrage? Both situations are absolutely unacceptable and our government is offering the feeblest responses to both. Maybe the sixteen year olds will help our society rediscover its moral backbone and catalyze the type of action that occurred during the Vietnam war. That would be a very good (but necessarily painful) thing.
2
I've heard 10 year olds speak more intelligently and reflectively on issues that affect the world than many a 'mature' man or woman. I'd like to see thorough civic education and engagement in schools and the option to cast a vote from the age of 12. The underage vote might not decide an election, but could bring attention to the thinking of our young people who will inherit the disasters left for them by their elders.
The child supporters of Black Lives Matter, and the survivors of the Parkland massacre are case in point.
I think we should have, as a trial run to this, that any family that has one or more teenagers has to be run as as democracy, including, in particular, all financial decisions.
"Considering that people between 18 and 24 have the lowest voter turnout of any age group in the United States".............
This may be because a large percentage of them are in college and cannot get to where they are registered to vote easily on the voting day, some may also be in college out of state. Some may be working at jobs where they do not have the flexibility to take the time off to get their voting location to cast their vote.
We should encourage voter participation and the voting process and make voting by mail much easier. Instead we make voting more more difficult. Somehow, our politicians do not want a large participation of youth in that age group.
If a 16 year old can pass a civic test and show knowledge about how our government works, may be they should be allowed to vote. If such a test is conducted many adults will probably not pass such a test.
How about making voting day a holiday ?
3
If adulthood begins at 16, that includes the right to buy and possess guns. The empirical evidence strongly indicates that maturity occurs after 21.
1
In a recent survey, Trump's approval rating was...
- 24% among people 18-29
- 34% among people 30-44
- 47% among people 45-64
- 51% among people 65 and older
To me, that's clear evidence that younger people think more clearly than older folks. Extrapolating a little, 16- and 17-year olds might be even smarter voters than their older brothers and sisters.
If anything, the data suggest that we take away the votes of senior citizens.
3
How strange, I thought your statistics were clear evidence that older people think more clearly than younger people -- which, as a general matter, everyone knows anyway from personal experience.
1
All the young people have demonstrated in this instance is that they can be articulate and forceful proponents of a single issue in which they are self-interested and emotionally invested. Whether they can think and reason about broader issues that affect the greater commweal remains to be seen.
If it's gotta be changed, raise it back to 21.
It was lowered to 18 because of the draft.
We don't have a draft.
When I was 16, I think the student council voted to allow candy sales during Senior study hall.
2
Most of us know from life experience you don't really begin to mature and grow up until you reach your 30s or 40s.
18 in many ways is way to young to vote, but I understand from personal experience how it happened as a result of the disaster of Vietnam. But you could easily make a case to raise it back to 21.
This prof may be intelligent, and some of his out-of-touch academic peers may be telling him how great his idea is, but most of us with degrees of our own and common sense, who have raised kids and lived for many decades on this planet, know he's not wise.
His is an emotional response lacking in reason. We should not go down this road.
29
Toddlers in daycare are at risk just as much so we should not stop at the arbitrary age of sixteen. Either we trust the kids to make adult decisions in their personal life including gun purchases, drivers licenses, criminal activities, student loans, cigarettes, and or we do not. If kids can vote, all the perks and responsibilities of an adult should go along with it. If we do not trust kids to make great decisions in their personal life perhaps they should not be making decisions involving the future of the rest of us. We keep hearing about how our schools are failing to educate kids right?
YES. And to make that happen, we can do resilience building. We can not keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. It's time to realize that saying a good idea is just not enough.
Now look, don't get overwhelmed, because people are already trained and know what to do. We educated them in college. The best program I've seen out there that can be initiated for all of us comes from San Francisco State. It's a peer based critical reflection community service learning practice. Who doesn't want to go down to their local coffee sho and circle up and do some story telling using a simple five step practice that reduces ptsd, generates a sense of belonging, and builds critical thinking skills and drives prosocial volunteering. Come on people, you now this is what works. Yeah, small groups around the world. Imagine the Army of Care. Thousands are trained. 30+ years of students participated. What is stopping them? You didn't ask. Tell them they matter. Just ask. Por Que No? The second coming is a wave people, not a point. No more martyrs, no more sides.
Let's all meet at the common ground(s). Our local coffee shops. It's peer based so it will spread. Everywhere.
Do you now al the fun stuff that came out of coffee shops? Gravity theory, newspapers, insurance, post office, shucks the idea of an office! So did social psychology. And the stock market.
Let's get a latter and save the humans.
We are ready for some momentum.
Do it for the children.
1
I simply do not agree with16 year olds voting. It is all emotion and little ability to see beyond that emotion as to the whole picture and the effects of the issue at hand. Not to mention everything else they could vote on emotionally and with a more “herd” mentality. I love kids, teenagers, their enthusiasm to engage their opinions- but honestly how many are paying attention to the world at large and how many understand how issues on the ballot effect the world around them? Take tax levies for example on real estate, schools, zoning laws, city maintenance issues.... all years away from intersecting into their lives. If they are passionate about these sad, unhappy and violent shootings- they need to understand a law may not change things- but perhaps reaching out to a reclusive fellow student would help...? A kind word, a smile. Disarming sadness, revenge, anger and isolation would be much more effective than a vote. Guns solve nothing- anger and violence are sumtems of something much deeper and painful. Classes on awareness, kindness and common human considerations might prove to have the power to unlock those angry fingers from around the trigger far before any law could.
1
When it comes to things like health care and guns, we have to compare ourselves to what they do in other countries.
Is there a developed country in the West that has a voting age of sixteen?
This argument is a complete non-sequitor.
Voting rights should be based on 2 fundamentals:
1. Agreement with and conformity with the social contract of the Republic (i.e. - yes to dissidents, no to felons).
2. Ability, including particularly maturity and sufficient social experience, to weigh alternatives.
Under 18s, certainly, and under 21s probably, as a nation-wide class, do not have "2".
How about making it more likely that adults vote? Extend absentee voting, schedule voting day at weekend with longer hours, or over a couple of days. Online voting no longer seems a good idea!
Perhaps if high schools started teaching what used to be called Civics and Social Studies (no, not Socialism) again, students and then adults at large would be better able to make more informed decisions and become less tribal, which is the very dangerous path we are on currently.
1
In Pediatrics, minors are often recognized to be mature enough to make important medical decisions concerning their own treatment. The 'tipping point' where the number is over 50% is at age 14. So voting at 16 doesn't seem crazy at all.
That we continue to develop doesn't matter...that may continue until age 50. The only question is when we cross the threshold, the minimum. Most of the 16 year olds I know are about as mature as their parents when discussing political issues, which is what voting is about. Face it, there are a lot of underinformed people who are 50-90...
4
I'm rather frustrated by the number of comments that teenagers are not "responsible" or "mature" enough to vote, and would suggest that the folks who instinctively react that way do some introspection. Please consider the where you are likely coming from. I doubt that many of the commenters here have deep exposure to the many teenagers who also work to help support their families, or are forced to take on other "adult" responsibilities.
I'd also like to point out that the average age of a Senator in the U.S. is 61. Regardless of political leanings, I would argue that we "adults" are part of a hostile and immature political climate.
People mature out of necessity, not just age arbitrarily.
43
Abby you make the case for selective voters rights,not blanket rights. Teens who can prove emotional and cognitive maturity could earn the right, but not all of them. (which is a test I'd wish upon adults too.)
Selective rights seem to be the real case made here... not all teens are as "fit" as the author claims. As not all adults would be either...
Agree if more students were as well educated and well spoken as those in Parkland. Unfortunately this is not the case and we run a great risk in further eroding our democracy.
1
Sure, let's give every American citizen a potential vote, regardless of age. We'll compute the number of votes each citizen is entitled to based upon the taxes they pay to the federal government (for example, one vote per thousand dollars of federal income and FICA taxes paid in the two years prior to the election with a floor of zero and a ceiling of ten). This electoral reform will bring us closer to what the founders intended for our republic.
1
Or how about we leave it right where it is. Anyone who has a child, or was a child for that matter, knows that children need to learn and be nurtured and grow up. 18 is arbitrary in terms of adulthood but for all of the things we use it for like serving in the military and voting it seems to make sense. Funny I don't hear too many folks suggesting we should lower the drinking age to 21 (I believe we should).
Remember when the kids of the 60s said, "If I can fight and die for my country, I should be able to drink a toast to my country." So, we lowered the drinking age to 18. How'd that work out? So you think letting them vote ... but not be able to drink is a good idea?
Try a thought experiment.
Let's say we drop the voting age to 16. Consider the appreciation of the effects of legislation that a typical 16 year old would have. Consider what they have not experienced as well as what they have, and how that factors into their decision making. Then consider how their brains are less inclined to consider the consequences of their doing as they feel than they will when they reach full maturity at about 25 years old.
Would the 25 year old self find the choices of the 16 year old self agreeable and be happy to live with the consequences?
Since young people (under 30) rarely vote anyway just what is the point. Maybe we should raise the voting age to 30.
A prime reason for lowering the voting age to 18 was that people this age are legally independent and subject to major adult responsibilities, including legal adulthood in the courts, completion of high school, driving, and (most important in the 70s) being drafted. If they have these responsibilities, they should be allowed a say over things such as being drafted for pointless, futile wars of aggression. No such arguments exist for 16-year-olds, who, besides being immature, are still under the legal authority of guardians and teachers, who could well exert undue influence on how the young people vote. Use some cold cognition to get over the enthusiasm of the moment and concentrate on getting existing 18-year-olds, with their dismal voting turnout, to the polls.
Children should not have a vote. 18 is pushing it in terms of maturity. I agree with other posters that the age to vote should be RAISED, not lowered.
1
Make access to voting as easy as access to guns (by age & geography).
Those who argue people under 18 lack the capacity to vote wisely, they should invert the problem. What do we need to do cultivate the necessary maturity? How do we help young people to assume the responsibility of having their (political) voice heard?
what next?
The determination of the high school students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas, their peers and supporters around the country can accomplish the most good directing their energy towards changing laws that will give them real power, the power to decide who represents them in government.
there is a unique opportunity right now, to make it easier for young people to register and vote (at public high schools). Republicans would be hard pressed to oppose a 'march for democracy' than a 'march for gun control'. It is not directly confrontational but rather indirectly threatens those with minority but intensely held views (eg NRA).
The kids could then achieve all the change they want and need on guns and other policy goals including lowering the age of voting.
There are around 4 million people aged 16, another 4 M at ages 17 & 18. this cohort could become a powerful force for political change, if this moment is wisely seized.
make high schools pillars of democracy and not monuments for murder
Most voters in age 18-25 don’t even vote. Using school shootings protest to reduce voting age to 16 is analogous to saying children in elementary school complaining about homework and lunch means they should vote too. School schooling are violent anamalies because we are stuck on gun control legislation. Let us solve that instead of trying to fight a different cause.
It's not like those of us who already have the vote have demonstrated our ability to use it wisely. Perhaps they should take the vote away from the rest of us until the current mess is resolved.
I agree with Mr. Steinberg. It can't happen soon enough.
While I think the ideas has merit, I'm not sure that the argument that 16-year-olds have the "cold-cognitive abilities" to vote, even if they still lack hot cognitive skills, is actually a good one.
We just had an election in which an adversary attacked our country by playing on our strongest emotions. Adding a group of voters who have not yet developed the wiring for self-regulation when upset seems like a win for those who would want to manipulate our society.
Also, if you're going to allow people to vote based on average cognitive ability at a certain age, does that mean, conversely, we should have a cap on the maximum voting age given the cognitive decline in seniors?
To lower the voting age to 16 would not be good idea. The teen-age brain is still developing and is in the "take risks" mode and they have not yet had enough life experience to evaluate possible outcomes. Many are killed or injured (yes, even the honor roll students) who text and drive. That is not to say that they should be denied the opportunity to contribute to society. School Boards as well as other agencies and government entities should include representatives elected by students and listened to. If more kids were included in decisions that affect them, they might develop into adults who understand the workings of the government, both the power and problems.
The kids from Parkland, and many throughout the nation have shown that they do care about our country, and that many are articulate and passionate. Let them mature before they are plucked from the vine. A persimmon, when ripe, can be compared to the food of the gods. Eaten too early, and it can have a devastating effect.
I disagree, at 16 kids can’t enter into legal binding contracts, or agreements, they can’t join the military, there are many things that they cannot participate in because they are considered minors. It’s also a fact that kids at that age their brains are still developing, they cannot think like an adult (at least in theory). They have no past political history to reflect back on to make a well thought out well reasoned decision. This is what propelled this current man into office, they get all their information from sound bites, and with no life experience to look back on, it makes no sense.
If this is about guns, at 16, your two years away from being able to vote, and while that’s still not a ton of life experience to reflect on, by 18, a well educated kid, can make the societal changes that young people made in the 1960s. Let’s let young adults, be just that young adults. The kids who’s school was recently under attack will have their day soon enough, and it’s enough for them to tell those elected officials, we will remember your non action.
Folks, did you read the article? The author makes a distinction between "hot" and "cold" reasoning. Yes, my 17-year-old daughter can be excitable and irrational at times, but when it comes to issues of politics, government and public policy, she is much more thoughtful and better informed than many of the adults I know. Young people like her should be allowed to vote. Those who are too busy playing video games will stay home on election day.
2
Here's a crazy idea. Do away with the age requirement altogether; however, require every voter to take and pass an examination showing they are competent to exercise the privileges associated with voting. And then require recurring training (perhaps ever third election cycle). Brilliant.
Absolutely! We need more one issue voters.
I can hear the politicians offering free soda and candy vending machines, government assistance with car payments and car insurance, a clothing allowance and so many more of the things 16 year old voters think they must have.
Does anyone remember being 16 and what was important to you then?
1
I prefer to see the age raised to 21 as opposed to lowered to 16. the teens we see today are not expressing their own rational, well thought out opinions. Instead they are parroting the ideals the media and Hollywood celebrities are constantly drilling into their brains. the last thing we need to do is allow teens to vote opinions that are not even their own on issues that they can not fully grasp all the implications of.
1
Is voting a "cold calculation"? I think all the evidence suggests that it is not. The writer mentions the reality that the bran does not develop fully until 22 This is the part needed not only for self regulation but to be able to consider the future - why young men can be so silly about risk and young women about the risks of pregnancy. Not a wise idea
Many commenters disagree with this piece. That in and of itself is not necessarily distressing, but the content of many of the disagreements, combined with the "upvotes" for those disagreements is.
Steinberg lays out neurological and psychological reasons for his position. Many are commenting based on their experience with their own kids or with kids in their immediate circle. Why do you think your experiences are typical and constitute good data for your inferences?
Many commenters simply say that 18 year-olds lack the experience necessary to make thoughtful decisions. Can you look at our president and the make-up of our Congress and argue that those of us over the age of majority and who vote are making wise decisions?
2
More young people need to be exposed to our current tax system (as having a job that takes out taxes) before they vote. I am in no way advocating a work requirement for voting. But getting young people to understand how nuts the tax system is early on in life before they get to the ballot box, might be enough to spur change for the better, especially for the working class.
1
This country requires involved citizens. "Social media" is just gossip or worse. If including 16 and 17 year olds into the fold of voting as they are taking civics in high school, I say invite them in. Many of them are more willing to question the status quo than their parents.
1
Despite all the hand-wringing in these comments, maybe the author is on to something. By 1968, at the age of 13, I and almost all of my peers in middle school were convinced of the insane folly of our still-unfolding debacle in Viet Nam. It took the "adults" another half decade and the squandering of another 25,000 American lives to see that their "light at the end of the tunnel" was delusional. Today's cynicism in civic life was jump-started by their callous disregard for human life, by their denial of reality and by the countless lies with which they bamboozled the citizenry to eke out their support.
2
Time to revisit the 1968 American International Pictures film, Wild In The Streets with it's hit songs, The Shape Of Things To Come and 14 Or Fight.
Sticky subject. Just because some teenagers are active, informed, and engaged doesn't mean all teenagers are active, informed, and engaged. I've actually been offered illegal drugs multiple times while working voter drives. I'm not sure I would trust the same minors who offered me, an identified official, drugs with voting privileges.
Even stickier, how do you give suffrage to individuals who aren't legally responsible for themselves? If you are under the age of eighteen, you are legally required to yield to parental authority or whoever the court determines to be your legal custodian. That is one mountain of a legal paradox. Without emancipation, voting at sixteen sounds like a ripe opportunity for unbridled fraudulence and manipulation if you ask me.
I support youth activism but we need to think a little harder about how we get young adults involved. The young adults won't always be these young adults.
Not a very persuasive argument. If the last few years have shown us anything, they have shown us that these so-called "cold" cognitive abilities are not at all the only things people rely on when making voting decisions.
I guess on the positive side - it would give cover to the deplorable voting rates of 18-22 year-olds by introducing a neo-slacker cohort of even greater magnitude.
On the negative side of the equation, I wouldn't trust a 16 year-old with a car and indeed many jurisdictions do not - but - hey let's let them vote.
Well, here's an argument that's going nowhere. Many states have already raised the drinking age to 21. We are now debating raising the age of eligibility to buy guns to 21. And, Laurence Steinberg wants to entrust the future of this country to young people who cannot be trusted with a beer or with a gun.
Good luck with that.
1
I have confidence in this generation. Younger people today mature earlier. Girls earlier than boys. So, perhaps, 16 for girls and 17/18 for boys?
Well, Laurence, originally I was going to disagree based on the emotional/responsibility and intellectual differences between a child and adult but based on your lacking knowledge of how any legislation related to gun ownership will proceed, maybe there isn't that much of a difference anyway. Just so you know, any legislation regarding gun ownership/gun control will most definitely be challenged up to the Supreme Court level where it will be weighed against its impact on the Second Amendment and the possibility of opening precedents for future unintended consequences. That is why so few restrictive gun legislation bills came from the Democratic Senate during Obama's first 2 years... the knowledge that they would not survive a Supreme Court challenge because of those pesky Bill of Rights amendments to that annoying little Constitution we have.
Does anyone else remember the 1968 cult classic "Wild in the Streets" starring Christopher Jones? The slogan to lower the voting age was "Fourteen or Fight."
Counterculture movie aside, all ages need to come together and discuss with civility and without blame. We all have value to bring to the table.
High school seniors should be able to, and encouraged to, register to vote at their schools.
Some of the comments fall into the trap of validation through the status quo. Just because we lowered the voting age to 18 doesn't mean it should be further lowered. In fact there's good reason to think there was no reason to lower it to 18. l The explanation was that if you're old enough to shoot and die in a war you're old enough to vote. Really? What possible logic informs that?
We know from recent events that it doesn't take much for such children to shoot and kill without any of the maturity it takes, for instance, to buy liquor. Being a soldier requires no maturity at all. It requires exactly the opposite--simply doing what you're told. That doesn't mean that many soldiers aren't capable of independent thinking. But when we look for soldiers we don't go to ages where independent thinking peaks, but where it is just starting, a maturity level hardly suitable for the voting both. Let's have some independent thinking about this topic!
1
I'm not even sure what to make of this. Is it just Democrats grasping at straws (votes) since they failed to gain citizenship for illegal immigrants???
Having voting start at 18 makes a lot of sense because that is generally when your primary education is finished which at least where/when I grew up included the mandatory completion of such things as American history and government/civics class as well as 4 years of literature and basic algebra, etc. All of which are very helpful if not outright necessary for making informed selections at the ballot box.
2
I trust my 16 year old students more than I trust Trump.
1
Considering that most Americans couldn’t name a single member of the Senate, or find Africa on the map, or name the year when WWII ended, just to bring up a few examples, it makes no difference if the voting age starts at 16 or 18 or any other age.
2
Lowering the voter age to 16 or to 17 in the US is worth a debate. 16 and 17 year olds were allowed to vote in the 2014 Scottish referendum, for example.
More importantly we need more schools with the financial support and high quality comprehensive teaching like the high school in Parkland Fla. I strongly recommend the article about the student activists of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/the-student-activists-of-mar...
Join a march on March 24th and show that we have their backs!
2
If the scientific research shows that 16 year-olds have enough "cold" reasoning ability to vote, then they should be allowed to vote.
If anyone thinks adults make better choices, I have three words for you: Donald John Trump.
2
People are living longer. Some people think the retirement age should be raised. Young people go to school longer, wait longer to find a real job, get married, have kids. I think actually 21 is a good age.
1
As long as 16 year olds are not legally independent of their parents in all states, I disagree with giving them the right to vote.
2
Voting souls be merit based, not age based. When one can pass an exam demonstrating basic understanding of civics and show an ability to sort facts from fictions one may vote, or not. At any age.
No. How about we raise the driving and working age from 16 to 18 instead.
Sixteen? Why sixteen? Kids start to go to kindergarten when they're five. Don't kindergarteners, who also are threatened by guns, have a right to vote against guns, too?
I have always maintained that the Left is somewhat infantile, but I hardly expected them to provide such obvious proof.
If people are too young to drink at 18, and now it is being argued that they are too young to have unrestrained access to weapons at 18, shouldn't we view them as too young to vote at 18, and move that to 21 also?
2
Sternberg notes: "Unlike cold cognitive abilities, self-regulation does not mature until about age 22, research has shown. (This is a good reason to raise the minimum age for purchasing firearms from 18 to 21 or older, as some have proposed.)"
No disagreement here, but that also means that we have to raise the age for military service (or at least combat situations) to 22. After all, if the reasoning is that an 18 year old should not be able to purchase a firearm, then surely the government shouldn't issue weaponry to an 18 year old for combat purposes.
2
This is a bad idea.
A better idea would be to raise the voting age back to 21 for the civilian population and 18 for those in the military.
7
Personally, I'm going the other way. I feel there should be a test of basic economics and civics to even get the right to vote.
7
If they're old enough to take government or civics, they're old enough to vote. Registering to vote should be a class requirement.
3
Not far enough. Elections are about the future and the elderly have no business participating. Pick a cutoff we can agree on; 85, 90, whatever you like.
1
In your suggestion about removing the right to vote from older citizens, I apparently missed the part where you presumably would also no longer charge them the taxes that they currently pay to subsidize your life and others.
3
Lowering the voting age isn't important. If the schools aren't safe, students should just refuse to attend school.
1
Maybe this would be a good idea if we eliminated the electoral college too. I didn't vote in my first election (this past presidential election) because I knew my vote wouldn't have mattered. And I know it didn't, because DT won anyway. I don't think I'll have faith in our system ever again. Part of me does regret not voting, but what difference will it make anyway? I know this is a horrible mindset but I'm not the only millennial who feels this way.
1
By not making the effort to vote because it “wouldn’t have mattered,” you insured your vote certainly did not matter. If many Millennials feel this way, it is an unfortunate commentary on the civic maturity of Millennials.
1
16 year olds could hardly do worse than we "mature experienced" adults have!
3
This will not fly, but I wish that a passing score on a mental competency assessment should be required for voting. An IQ of 100, demonstration of reasonable, average reasoning, regardless of the age.
1
Well the 16 year olds will have to live with the consequences much longer than the senior citizens.
First, the American toddler knows more than the average tea party fundamentalist.
2nd the voting age should be lowered to zero. It is reasonable to assume that parents have the well beings of their offsprings in mind and they should be able to exersize the voting right for their children. This would offset the proportionally excessive influence of the older generation.
1
We don’t really have a representative democracy. It is simply not “one person, one vote” until every person’s interests are properly, PROPORTIONALLY represented. Including all young people.
If my under-age daughter could have voted, she would NOT have voted for a big tax cut for the rich, adding $1.5 trillion to the national debt, which she—ultimately—is going to pay for.
My under-age daughter would vote for a universal health care system, not one with Medicare just for those over 65, but Medicare for ALL.
She would vote for candidates that took global warming seriously, because it is her and her children who are going to have to deal with it, not retired folks who vote.
But her interests are simply not represented and that is why we end up with the sub-optimal public policies that we end up with.
Think about it. We have a distorted electoral system, unrepresentatively silencing the proportional interests of one-quarter of the population. That is why EVERYBODY should get to vote.
It is wholly appropriate and doable that babies and children get to vote—but, as a practical matter, to have their parents vote for them, representing their interests. It would be quite simple to register all children to vote, but for parents to vote for their interests for them until they turn 21 or 18 or 16 or whatever.
America’s long-term interests would be better served. Let’s do it; let's have a true, representative democracy.
1
This dilemma seems to beg the question:
"Is there a statutory solution to school killings?"
Someone, please convince me that such is the case.
I wouldn't call the young fledgling activists anything close to indolent narcissists but ... it's worth nothing, isn't it, that they are waking up to activism in larger numbers right now (to be sure, many young people were already active in many causes) largely because the school safety issue directly affects them. Can we expect them to do the same for issues that don't? I don't know. Three Senators have asked the US to stop funding the brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen where thousands of children have died and many more are malnourished or may die from disease for which there's no medicine. Their homes are destroyed. They are innocent. There is no public protest of this, just as after 2003 there was little protest on the high school level of the violent Iraq and Afghanistan Wars where hundreds of thousands of civilians died. Why not ask for the vote then? If anything, it seems what we need is not just teens to vote but everyone to vote. Mandatory voting. A part of citizenship. You can vote for no one, or yourself. But everyone must take a position.
This piece assumes that younger voters will actually vote for politicians who will then change gun laws; I think that's a stretch. For one thing there's no guarantee that younger voters, as a whole, view the gun debate any differently than their elders; despite the protestations of a few teens from a school in Florida there has been no mass uprising that suggests a sea change. Next you have to assume that younger voters will vote for politicians who will do something about gun laws, instead of voting for politicians based on other more pressing issues, for example, tax cuts, snowflakes, access to jobs, or whether Hillary Clinton is a crook or not. Finally, you have to assume that they won't vote irrationally on all other issues, it's possible but I'd rather wait until they're either in college, an apprenticeship, or are gainfully employed.
I don't see why we "have to assume" or "guarantee" anything about teenagers' votes. We have no such assumptions or guarantees about their elders.
Great idea, Larry. Let's give children, raised on violent video games, television shows and movies, living in a culture where violence - especially against brown-skinned, Middle Easterners, and anyone who isn't "one of them" who happen to be living where our oil is under their sand, where death and destruction of other cultures is admired and encouraged - yes, Larry, they are are perfect advisors on societal issues and should be allowed to vote. Smart kids who came forward to speak at the CNN symposium on gun violence found themselves being coached by the media to ask certain questions or respond in a way that supports the meme du jour. If cognitive awareness is your ruler by which children should be judged, then let's give unborn children a voting chance, since we know that they are very aware of their surroundings but lack the verbal skill to express their feelings. Except for a kick or two…One kick for Republican issues. Two kicks for Democrat issues. It's pretty obvious that being singularly unconscious to one's situation isn't a real issue - as a great proportion of our Senators and Congressmen are members of the walking dead, when it comes to doing something for the public good.
So lower it away…and let us reap the whirlwind of misguided do-gooders and the clueless.
terrible idea.
many conservative voters, particularly with deferential, compliant, faith-abiding children could literally tell their kids who to vote for
this would open opportunities for new kinds of voter fraud that would be hard to predict
At least they vote. You may have noticed the 2016 election results.
We should let them run for office. How worse can the be then our present two-party system?
For those who are commenting about the brain capacity of young folks or their educational levels, I would gently remind them that there are no mental fitness requirements for voting in this country. To add such a standard to this group as a way of keeping them from voting smacks of a bygone era of which most in this country are not particularly proud.
2
Yet their is an age requirement for alcohol, guns and driving.
1
If you oppose reducing the voting age to 16 because your think teenagers are hot-headed and irresponsible, then ask yourself why we should not have intelligence and emotional tests required for *everyone* before you gain the right to vote. There are plenty of adults who are hot-headed and irresponsible, and yet we let them vote too. And there are plenty of 16 and 17 year-olds with more maturity and common sense than a lot of adults.
49
As you say, there are plenty of adults who are hot-headed and irresponsible, and one of them now resides in the White House.
3
Schools do not teach politics much and it show in our elections. It is in fact discouraged because politics is always controversial.
I suppose it would be relevant for a sixteen year old to have an opinion on this matter. I’m sixteen years old, and I personally agree that the voting age should be lowered. There are innumerable teenagers who are fully aware of issues and situations pertaining to the United States and other countries. Often times we feel that our voice is left unheard due to our age, and we are unfairly disregarded due to our “immaturity.” I think the kids in Florida and anywhere else in the United States would agree that this is ridiculous. We are the next generation of leaders, so let us behave as such.
3
When I was 18 I voted for McGovern, and look how that turned out.
But I digress.
I think what would be much more effective than lowering the voting age would be a lucid, transparent and open discussion about why the 2nd Amendment is worded the way that it is.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Note that it says State, not Nation. The framers knew the distinction. Why did they make it? Because Virginia (and the Carolinas) would not go along with ratifying the Constitution if their militias could one day be forced to merge into a national militia. These state militias were used primarily as slave patrols, and Virginia felt that the North could strip the South of their labor force if the right to keep their "well regulated Militia" were not enshrined in an Amendment.
If this was widely known, would the current vernacular interpretation of the 2nd - to guard against ANY government tyranny - be maybe looked at with clearer eyes? Would it then be maybe easier to see how absurd it would be to try to defend yourself with an M-16 if the Pentagon decides it is coming after you with a Sherman tank or rocket launchers?
Isn't it bad enough we have to suffer a fashion and entertainment landscape, or rather desert, that is warped to conform to half-baked minds? People who eat detergent pods and make car crash movies number one don't need a voice in policy.
1
Rather than lower the voting age to 16, we should encourage 18 year olds to vote.
1
Let's lower the drinking age and gun buying age and cigarette buying age to 16 while we're at it. The logic holds.
2
Get rid of the electoral college and expand times and methods of voting. Also, let's get some unhackable voting machines with paper trails first.
When I was 18 I voted for McGovern, and look how that turned out.
Not.
But that's neither here nor there.
I think what would be much more effective than lowering the voting age would be a lucid, transparent and open discussion about why the 2nd Amendment is worded the way that it is.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Note that it says State, not Nation. The framers knew there was a distinction. Why did they make it? Because Virginia (and the Carolinas) would not go along if their militias - which were used primarily as slave patrols - could someday be forced to merge into a national militia. They felt that it would have been a back door way for the North to strip the South of their labor force.
Once this is widely known, the current vernacular interpretation of the 2nd - to guard against ANY government tyranny - can maybe be looked at with clearer eyes. Then maybe people will better be able to see that after all, if the Pentagon decides it is coming after you, what good is an M-16 going to be in the face of a Sherman tank or rocket launchers? Ask The Move: they got wiped out by one bomb dropped from a police helicopter.
16
This is a terrible idea. If you don't like the fact that Mr. Trump is President, then you should not favor lowering the voting age. Too many non-thinkers led to Mr. Trump's election. Treating the Presidential election like entertainment led to Mr. Trump's election. We need more not less adult supervision. Mr. Trump is troublesome. But it will really be troublesome if we reduce elections for all political offices to entertainment. How about someone writing a guest column on benefits of restricting the voting franchise?
Voting in Brazil is compulsory for all citizens over 18 and under 70, and optional for citizens who are aged 16 and 17, are older than 70 or are illiterate. The voting process is good but the politicians not so much!
2
The kids in Parkland Florida have it together better than many adults. They should be able to vote as it is their country and world we are creating.
Sadly without producing real incentives or nurturing curiosity and interest in politics within this demographic (at school and home), then voter turn out will remain negligible.
If this is about assault weapon ban, this is a distraction since the country is held hostage by NRA leadership and extremists and it has nothing to do with voting age. The secondary factor is gerrymandering and big money politics.
But if this is about giving the kids a voice, you must prepare to grant them the privileges as well as responsibilities of being an adult. That includes 16 year old standing trial in adult court and the consequence of the outcome.
The truth is age is quite arbitrary in many instances.
The real problem is the asymmetric experience in American life. We have a president with a dubious 5 deferments for military service in the age of draft. Same with the NRA guy. He wants every American armed to the teeth while he too was either a draft dodger or a military reject.
The current gun problem is in part due to gerrymandering. And finally even the court has enough and reject Pennsylvania's redistricting.
To be fair, gun is a huge issue. However, there are other huge issues. This is not to say moving voting age to 16 doesn't have any merits. But you don't need to create another issue to solve the gun problems. Otherwise, it is just another cop out. Every responsible adult can rally around the kids' #NeverAgain movement to make a reasonable gun legislation
4
Here in North Carolina and I believe in New York 16 y/o people who commit crimes are tried as adults without any special action of the court adjudicating them over to adult court.
I agree with the fact of allowing people to vote at the age of 16, because I think that already at that age we are able to make rational decisions. Moreover, if the government allows young men and women to vote, first we have an higher rate of people going to vote, and secondly if we involve adolescents from a young age, we can be quite sure that they are going to vote every single time also in the future. Involving them, making them learning things about politics, justice, etc, is extremely important if we want come out from this slightly tragical situation.
3
Supposedly voting is based on considerate experience and opportunity to focus on information that 16 year olds haven't had the time to learn.
Just looking into the graduation rates and knowledge acquired in classrooms does not denote knowledge that only time gives.
Some adults never mature but voting is a right that is based on knowledge of issues that unfortunately most young people are swayed by emotions and not experience. Why is it that we keep the age for entry to stress related jobs at at least 18 or most likely 21. Decisions require or should be based on maturity......
3
Yet at the same time, NY State is raising the age of criminal culpability from the current age of 16 to 18 " because juveniles don't make rational decisions and shouldn't be treated as adults after having committed crimes."?? Please make up your mind Mr. Steinberg. Do you want to treat them like adults or juveniles? Based on your information, one could just as easily argue that a voting decision is also a "hot cognitive decision".
3
Setting the bar lower at the NYT.
8
16 years is simply too young of an age for someone to vote!
9
At the present time the political climate seems to be reverting to populism of the 19th century, excepting that the tribal tendencies are amplified by Twitter and Facebook. I think the problem is a lack of historical perspective. Remember that much of the twentieth century was defined by the carnage of the first World War then against the poverty of the Great Depression that was ended by another World War and a Cold War. Now that the "greatest generation" is almost gone, is it any surprise that a fondness for authoritarian regimes is *more* popular with youth? (See The Guardian: Have millennials given up on democracy? Mar 18 2016, and NBC Think "Is democracy essential? Millennials increasingly aren't sure") I don't see lowering the voting age as a cure to such a simplistic mindset. Democracy and protection of the rights of minorities are not synonymous, in fact there is a tension between majority rule and rule of law.
Before we discuss the voting age, perhaps we should discuss school curriculum that includes Civics, critical thinking and the benefit of distinguishing between a disagreement of opinion and personal insults, inclusive the need to refrain from the latter in order to have genuine constructive discussion of policies.
15
This is strictly a value debate, but it does impact policy due to the sheer number of new voters with their own special interests. Certainly, this issue requires some serious thought, not a whimsical adventure.
4
This little gem comes to us from the convolutions inherent in “Gray Matter”? I’m not impressed.
If anything, we might seriously consider increasing the voting-age first to thirty by way of rational transition, then to forty.
At sixteen, the critical faculty may or may not yet have developed; and if it has then it’s just BARELY developed and is uninformed by ANY life experience relevant to debating much less determining the forms and content of our general governance. And some want to genuflect so pusillanimously at the feet of Demos that we’re willing to inflict on our franchise the terrors of acne and “He started it!” and “Heh, heh, you wanna take in a movie with me?”
Giveth me a break. Cutteth me some slack.
On one issue, guns, the author has come to think that (very) young minds unencumbered by convictions based on age-old opposed interests offer us a useful way out of a frozen politics kept frozen by polarized ideological tribes – a way useful enough to overcome the danger of giving one-dimensional minds a voice. Heck, I know SIXTY-year-olds on BOTH sides who don’t belong within a galaxy or two of a polling station.
Almost all kids that age have no concept of “hot cognition” and “cold cognition”. What is supposed to make self-representation work is an INFORMED electorate; and the one we have isn’t informed ENOUGH by immense gulfs. The author wants to render knowledge and some semblance of societal maturity, that clothes “cognition”, COMPLETELY irrelevant.
13
On 16 September 1968, the storied NBC Comedy show “Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In” launched its second season by introducing the “Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award”, an award it would bestow every week thereafter to some individual or entity for some tongue-in-cheek achievement. That first award presentation went to the U.S. Congress, for waffling on gun control. Almost fifty years ago!
We HAINT come a long way, baby, at least not on the issue of guns – and others. Giving sixteen-year-olds a formal franchise-voice on the issue won’t resolve it; but it could require that every box of bullets sold come with bubble gum.
This is a blatant attempt to use an implied platform, “Gray Matter” in the New York Times, to flog a highly controversial ideological stance, as if even kids can accept the manifestly evident burning-bush quality of the author’s convictions. We won’t solve real challenges by such facile yet invalid means.
4
"Heck, I know SIXTY-year-olds on BOTH sides who don’t belong within a galaxy or two of a polling station."
Then age doesn't really seem to be the problem, does it?
As the mother of two teenagers - 16 and 13 - I concede that they are frequently impulsive, dangerously reckless, and willfully lazy.
What they are not, however, is ignorant. In fact, because they are still actively engaged in learning, their grasp of both history and current world events is far beyond that of my peers. If you doubt it, try passing a current AP World History exam.
As it stands, we now have a septuagenarian Toddler-in-Chief with the critical thinking skills of a garden slug and the recklessness of two teenage jocks at a house party.
While I do worry that my sloppy, self-absorbed teens are way too eager to put themselves in precarious situations, I'm certain they would've been thoughtful enough to vote "nyet" on the danger that is currently occupying the oval office.
In 30 years as a reporter, covering elections on all levels of politics, from most perspectives imaginable, I learned a lot from a man who said he was going to vote for a particular candidate because he like the guy's tie. If your average voter is willing to cast a ballot based on something that superficial, then anybody that wants to vote, no matter what their age, should be able to vote, as long as the meet the requirements of citizenship, etc. Kids certainly can't do any worse than some so-called adults.
21
", I learned a lot from a man who said he was going to vote for a particular candidate because he like the guy's tie."
And in 2008 we had one news reporter who liked Obama because of the crease in his slacks. Another said he felt a tingle run down his leg. A congressman noted that Obama didn't speak in Ebonics.
And people think teens are shallow?
1
The dysfunctional Congress for almost three decades ,tells it all about our political system has failed to deliver . The Congress has been under influence of Special interests lobbyists , big business corporations and billionaires . Look at major national issues of budget deficits , Debt , economic growth rate , Healthcare and immigration reforms have not been resolved in last decades. This is about time to replace Congress with an alternative e Congress . There is new challenge and requirements of 24/7 direct access for Citizens participation with local Congressmen in debates on issues if any from 435 Congressional Districts . What do you think ?
1
I was in high school and came of age during protests over the war in Vietnam, and the military-industrial complex that still remains a big player in our country; see companies with rights as individuals. Perhaps this moment will be this generation's defining entry into activism and responsible citizenship. We can only hope...
7
Young adults of age 16 or 17 are usually still in high school, where they are able to take on meaningful conversations in class regarding the ramifications of voting and what their votes may mean to a democracy. They have a chance to hear both sides of an argument, to develop skills toward persuading others, can learn to defend their side, yet pay attention to the opposing side, all while being supervised by a college trained and certified teacher. This gives them an advantage toward making informed decisions in the voting booth. They also never watch Fox News and are likely not to be influenced by such propaganda.
26
School frequently does not turn out to be the informed culture you may desire it to be. First, holding mock elections for very young children is not a lesson in civics , it is the first lesson of being a irresponsible, uninformed voter. Secondly, kids are far more influenced by media than you realize. Polical ads run ad nauseum for months and kids cannot avoid them any more than adults can. Kids are often worried about their images and even though discussions should offer varied points of view, kids may not want to seem unpopular in any way. Lastly, there are many parents who do not want their children to take part in discussions that may not reflect their own viewpoints (a complaint I have heard from parents of college students no less). There is far more pressure for kids to conform these days than to be free thinkers. It is sad.
(Written by a former teacher and someone who has siblings who are still teachers.)
12
Perhaps by giving them the responsibility to vote, the majority of them would become free thinkers. Furthermore,I don’t know many adults not worried about their image; I am not convinced 16 year olds worry about it more as you imply. Also, I have seen high school students passionately work and research and apply skills in UN Mock Trial and class Trials more than many adults research candidates.
"They also never watch Fox News and are likely to be influenced by such propaganda"
Sure they get all the political training and information they need from Game Of Thrones, Dancing With The Stars or any celebrity wearing the latest lapel pin or on a partisan video.
1
An intriguing proposition, and the distinction between hot and cold cognition is useful. But my generation, the Boomers, insisted on lowering the voting age and where did it get us? After our misguided attempt to elect an anti-war candidate, George McGovern, too many of us decided politics just wasn't cool - yielding the boring day to day engagement to our conservative peers, who were all too ready to use it as a career stepping stone.
1
It is my belief that youth are an oppressed demographic and they shouldn’t have to wait until they hopefully/maybe survive into adulthood through shootings or abuse to have their voices finally matter.
Society will not be just until youth can participate in democracy and be given a voice in elections, even if it is a modified voice.
For those concerned about youth voting, there could be designated/elected adult allies who function as regional representatives so that it isn’t a pure popular vote. There could committees of competent youth representatives learning about the needs of their peers and works with the adult ally to cast a representative ballot that is calculated in a proportionate way. Some towns have youth councils that work with adult representatives, in a perfect world it could work on a national level.
10
The fact that young people distrust in the whole election system proves that lowering the age wouldn't be any help. Citizens of that age can be politically active the way they know best. By mobilizing the youth on the internet and in grass root protests, their voice is arguably more effective than through voting. I believe the youth understands this.
1
It would be more meaningful if people in this age group were advocating for this change. People 30 and below are not historically considered consistent voters. Many are physically vocal, but do not participate in elections.
It is difficult to argue the importance of voting. Either you get it or you do not. If interest in the younger age group continues after the gun debate, it would be interesting to see what they think of this. However, many of these children will be voting age by 2020 anyway, so NRA beware. They have just got an "up close and personal" experience with campaign financing.
10
As a father, I'd like to see the voting age limit eliminated entirely.
I see no evidence that adults are making better decisions than children. Make the age to vote zero; if you can mark the ballot correctly, and if needed prove your registration, then you get to vote. I know some fairly bright 8 year olds that could pull that off. Then the idea of voting is established as early as the voter needs it to be; there is no artificial barrier between a person too young to vote and one sufficiently mature.
While we're at it, let's make voting over the age of 21 mandatory.
22
So you skew voting even more by mothers taking babies who do not have any say in their world and mom checks the box she wants, no 18 is a good jump off point. Did your plan include drafting 10 year olds to go fight a war.
Mandatory voting? So, people who don't care enough to choose to vote should be FORCED to vote helping randomize the results? Is forcing someone to vote a moral (or liberal) solution to anything? Even lunatic authoritarians don't go this far.
Ben, you need to give this another thought!
The civic argument is one thing, but the claim that "voting is a good example" of cold cognition is highly debatable at best, if not outright false. Evidence in social psychology (and to some degree political science) for the primacy of emotions in determining political preferences and voting behavior is voluminous. The author would do well to acquaint himself with it.
9
My prior reply regarding the commenters' error, does not my imply support for or against Steinberg's proposal. I actually do not yet have an opinion, tho I lean against.
The writer of this comment is errs. Steinberg is not saying that voting is not emotionally driven; he is saying that the context of voting is different from the context of , say, being confronted by an agitated person who insults you in front of your friends or being with friends who pressure you to do something risky under circumstances where you have a short period of time to make a decision. The weight of the scientific evidence to date shows us that the decision making of adolescents is adversely affected relative to adults in these latter 'hot' contexts, whereas in contexts that allow for calm deliberation, adults and adolescents (over the age of 14/15) do not differ in their decision making (at the group level)
My kids would have been more thoughtful voters at 16 than many are later in life. But many 18 year olds who could vote just don't. What we need is to vote by mail, on Saturdays, over a month.
11
Whether teens or not, Many would-be voters do not get to the polls because their jobs don't allow them time off or their district does not have enough polling places for the population.
Election Day should be made a federal holiday or moved to a Saturday when more citizens of whatever age may engage in their constitutional right and privilege to vote!
I've always been confused by the argument that we should make easier and more convenient. For example, make Election Day a national holiday, move Election Day to a Sunday or Saturday, give people paid time off to vote, provide transportation, lower the voting age, allow on line voting, vote by mail, extend the hours, and on and on.
The one responsibility that we as U.S, citizens have the opportunity of living in a free democratic society in which "We the people, ...." have is to at the very least take the time to vote. However inconvenient it may be to our busy schedules.
The problem is not opportunity, time, etc. It is about engagement. Just because I don't like choices x, y & z that are listed on the ballot does not mean I can't write in r or even q. Or perhaps run yourself.
Please do not use the lame excuse of "Well, it was just not convenient for my schedule." Every country always gets the government it deserves!
Sometimes these sort of changes are of good intentions, and they turn out to be the biggest disasters.
I forget if it was Democrats or the Republicans, but there were changes in the way one of these two parties selected their Presidential candidate, and those changes led, one way or another, to Trump ending up in the White House.
It might seem like a great plan, but maybe we will all be shocked, in a bad way, as to what it leads too.
3
how could it be worse than status quo?
It’s just a knee jerk reaction to the current political environment. Well intentioned, but it wouldn’t turn out well.
While I agree with the concept, and given the amount of brain growth development between 16 and 17, it make more sense to lower the voting age to 17. Imagine all of the high school seniors discussing with their younger classmates their excitement about voting. Maybe this would increase our national voting percentage?
9
Actually, brain development continues up until the late 20s, esp in higher level, so-called meta-cognitive abilities. The sort of cognitive processes that would allow, for instance, a person to conclude that just because there is a choice between two parties does not mean that this represents democracy.
Given the abhorent condition of many of our public schools, many 16-year-olds can barely read and write. It is absolutely absurd for anyone to suggest that a 16-year-old's judgement is what we would want to add to our voting population. There is a good reason why adults are defined as 18-year-olds.
48
There are many legal adults that are unable to read and write, under your standard, we should take away their right to vote. Voting is about representation, not education...
1
If the goal is to give a voice at the ballot box to younger citizens, another alternative is to assign everyone a vote at birth. For those younger than the voting age, their parents or guardians would have their proxy. While there are undoubtedly execution complications (who receives the proxy in divorce, etc.), in principle this would give influence to those currently underrepresented. Parents' votes on behalf of their children would reflect the next generation's interests; perhaps we'd invest more in education.
5
The argument that 16 & 17 year olds vote at higher rates where they are able, coupled with knowing that those who don’t vote in the first election for which they’re eligible are less likely to vote later, is compelling. I’m afraid that many of our teens who are speaking loudly for what is right right now, only to be shut down by adults who think they know better, will become disillusioned by the time they’re 18.
Really interesting food for thought. I certainly know plenty of 16/17 years olds who are much more rational than many adults. If we can capitalize on the passion and intelligence of our teens, maybe they really could lead a new generation of citizens who vote and are active in shaping their democracy.
7
Given that Trump speaks at the third-grade level and attracts nearly half of the electorate, it is difficult to argue that most of the voters are any more informed or articulate than primary school children. Lowering the voting age may not change much, especially given that voter suppression tactics by Republicans are the more important limit on democratic agency at the polls.
7
I suggest that Professor Steinberg remove himself from "the faculty lounge of kindred spirits" and actually think about what he is proposing.
Whether on the local, state, or federal level, most everything can be reduced to competition for limited resources (i.e., tax dollars). At age 16, I had no idea about the burden of taxation on most of us, the difficulties one encounters in dealing with healthcare, and other mundane issues like health and safety codes in a community.
Mature judgment often doesn't occur until someone has experienced hard knocks. It is getting up off of the canvas, dusting ourselves off, and learning from the experience that is critical. A 16 year old's WELL is simply not deep enough to where she/he is credibly capable of weighing in on many of the significant matters of the day.
The liberal media has lapped up the comportment of the young men and women of Parkland, FL. Prior to these students returning to school, I had suggested that they do library research on the NRA and then to write a 500 word theme on what they had learned.
Much of what the liberal media has spewed since the horror at Parkland is either wrong or out-of-context. If we are interested in transparency and truth (I am), then I think that it would behoove us to be sure that we are in command of the facts prior to opening our mouths.
The world is a complicated place with many adults ill-equipped to survive. Adding 16 year old voters to the mix benefits no one.
52
The effective tax rate I paid at 14, when I got my first minimum-wage job working in a movie theater, is higher than the tax rate paid by hedge fund managers who take home hundreds of millions of dollars a year in compensation.
It’s awfully naive of you to assume that a deep well of lived experience is the foundation of responsible citizenship; in my adult life I’ve found precisely the opposite to be true.
6
As it stands now, older people are making decisions which will most impact those in future generations, and will barely impact the senior citizens who dominate the voting rolls at all. Investments in infrastructure and urban and regional planning are some examples. Climate change legislation is another. Guns as well, because any efforts to reduce the number of guns in circulation will take years if not decades to have a meaningful impact. The "skin in the game" refrain from (mostly) the tax-averse is faulty; those with the most skin in the game are those who will be alive for the next fifty or seventy years.
3
Lots of 16 year olds have experienced "hard knocks." Meet the kids I teach. They aren't lying on mom's couch.
1
Actually, I - and I'm not alone - am thinking that given what we are learning about human maturation and the lengthening of what we call adolescence, the age for EVERYTHING - voting, alcohol purchase, military service and the draft, gun purchase and possession - should go UP.
Maybe to 25. No lower than 21.
The age at which one can be drafted is 18, but that's only for the convenience of the state and the military complex. That all the other privileges and "rights" turn on the draft age is also only a convenience. There's nothing in stone or magical about 18. Time to push the age up for all of these activities.
59
NEVER in HISTORY will something like THAT happen AGAIN in a LEGIT Democracy. The Drinking Age & Voting Age in Germany is 16 & it's been that way for YEARS! Germany's citizen's are FAR Happier than the USA & they actually take care of each other with a STRONGER form of Socialism for ALL versus the US model of Socialism only for the Military & Corporations!
A 25 year old wouldn't obey the same sort of suicide orders in combat that an 18 year old would. That's why the Military says OK to extreme youth!
As a high school teacher, I disagree with this articles conclusion. Teens can make good decisions sometimes but at 16 they are still reluctant to be informed on most topics. This doesn’t stop adults from voting but these kids are still required to sit through hours of classes and teachers could potentially influence the votes of kids inappropriately.
32
Scott...many of their parents listen to hours of Limbaugh and Hannity. Same thing as being influenced by a teacher...
Plus, at least teens might not listen when a teacher is not cool as they see being cool. Limbaugh ain't ever been a cool kid or adult...but too many adults listen to him like a demi-god.
IMO, its the flip-flopping nature of teens that is more critical an issue. One day they learn X in a class, and they are now experts on the subject. Next week a new fact, and they Zig...then zag the next month...
Add social media reliance...bad mix.
But of course adults can be as bad...but we hope for more...
and with 2 kids in HS, I've been watching teachers try to politically influence my kids opinions for years. every day after school I have to break down what some teacher told my kid so that they could understand context and rationally analyze the message. then and only then, in many cases, they realize they don't agree with what the teacher was trying to instill in them.
it is absolutely not a teachers job to politically influence my children. it is their job to teach them to think critically and analyze facts and circumstances rationally. and then come to a conclusion on their own. it is not their job to plant their own often ill-informed opinions in their heads.
1
While I think those in high school should have some say in every issue which affects them, to some degree or another, no, I don't agree that they should be allowed to vote. The voting age was revised downward from 21 to 18 in 1975. I know because I cast my first vote at age 20 in the 1976 election. The basis for changing the voting age to 18 from 21 was that up until just a year or so before any 18-year-old male was subject to be "drafted" into the military, and we had just literally finished up Vietnam--with Saigon falling in April 1975. On that basis, I would agree that any young man or woman under the age of 26 who is serving the regular Army, Navy (Marines), Air Force and Coast Guard should be allowed to vote twice. They earned it. But I don't know of any 16-year-old young man or woman who is mature enough to vote--and very few of those who are 18 years old.
12
I teach at a University, and I could not have been more appalled by how many of my students did not vote the last time around. Question is not about giving student the right the vote but getting them to actually do it.
44
Does democracy benefit when more voters go to the polls, be they uninformed or otherwise?
2
OR, was that an intervention from Heaven looking out or those students' long-term futures? Those people will prosper because the GOP holds the White House right now, as we climb toward three million Trump jobs.
1
The fact that teenagers aren't able to regulate their emotions means that we can't trust teenagers to make the right "cold cognition" decisions that they can make in ideal conditions. However, when will there ever be a time in modern day America where the media won't be trying to play with our emotions to ge a reaction? This seems contradictory and makes the base of his argument a lot weaker in my opinion.
7
That's an argument to raise the voting age to, say, 60.
The voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 because young people made the case that if they could be drafted and sent to fight and die in a foreign war that they disagreed with, they should at least have the opportunity to express their policy choices by voting.
Now that we have an all-volunteer military, there is no draft, and there is nothing preventing people of military-service age from "voting with their feet," and not participating in wars with which they disagree (which, judging by the composition of our military, it appears that they are doing).
At minimum, the voting age, and perhaps the general age of majority, should be returned to 21. It used to be that you could not vote unless you owned land, as land ownership indicated that you had a stake in the success of the nation. Since a return to this policy (or one like it) would be a non-starter today, I would propose, as others have here, raising the voting age to 25, or even to 30, which might in some small way create a more thoughtful electorate.
20
You are Recommended!
You are right about Maine not supporting the military. The place I checked shows that all of 78 Mainers are serving in the Army, Air Force, and Marines TOTAL. The Navy and Coast Guard bring that up a bit.
And shouldn't we let DACA youth & legalized others wait twenty-five years before they can vote?
2
I have to question how "thoughtful" is an analysis when its only stated objection to "land ownership" as a voting qualification is that it would be a "non-starter today."
Voting should be merit based, not age based. When one can pass an exam demonstrating basic understanding of civics and show an ability to sort facts from fictions one may vote, or not. At any age.
1
16 year olds are also easily influenced, their brains are still in growing mode in terms of evolving and learning about society, and are not as much able to muster self control. The word "maturity" exists for a reason. It's great that they have a voice for expression and are using organization and coordination in order to motivate society and government to better provide protection and safety in their schools.
Let us make sure that as adults we are good models and examples and demonstrate a fulfillment of our duty to guide and protect them.
15
GY : "16 year olds are also easily influenced".....agree, but then look at all of the older adults who watch Fox "News" as see how easily they are influenced. And don't forget the current President who tweets many of his opinions based on what Hannity has just spouted. And have you ever seen Alex Jones? An adult nut job who influences some adults.
"The federal voting age in the United States should be lowered from 18 to 16."
I am not sure, it looks like an emotional reaction to the gun violence at schools or Is it an expression of full faith on-16- year old kids? Why not 14? Anyway, how many- 16- year olds really want to vote? These school kids are not asking for the voting privilege, they are asking for total safety at schools, that is a responsibility of the government but unfortunately, the so- called adults in our government including our president and many Republicans are not providing that safety. whose brain is not fully developed?
8
I'm not sure if you've read the news recently, but our president, Donald Trump, is actually pushing for a higher age to buy guns and the ban of all automatic weapons.
2
I reluctantly agree. Most of our states grant driver licenses to 16 year olds, although they may be restricted to daytime driving or carrying only one passenger. I can't think of any greater responsibility in normal life than handling a 3000 lb. vehicle going 65 MPH. That's a lot of kinetic energy, and can be deadly. I figure if you are able to do that, then you're responsible enough to vote
14
EXACTLY! & many teens have better driving records than some Adults
To Bobby from Jersey:
Yes, by the age of 16 you can drive a car, fire a gun, work, and babysit, all of which require cool decision-making and responsibility.
Before the age of 16 you can sign up to the ROTC to become juvenile soldiers.
By 16 if you're exceptionally smart you can start university.
The idea that people are necessarily are stupider or more hot-heated while young is ridiculous especially if all these activities are condoned for children.
But not buy a gun?
I can't believe the man has children, otherwise he would never propose something so stupid.
110
Have you talked with your children about political questions and voting? You might be surprised at how much they know.
1
A 16 year old can NOT
(1) get married without parental or court permission in most states
(2) sign a legally binding contract for a car, a house, a cellphone or anything else
(3) sue or be sued in their own legal capacity without a guardian signing for them or representing their interests
(4) join the military
(5) buy alcohol, tobacco or a gun
(6) live on their own without a parent or guardian unless a court declares them a legally emancipated minor
(7) and as to driving - many states restrict them to driving in certain hours and the number or type of passengers they can have
(8) forget renting a car -typically have to be 25!
NYT is always wailing about how 16 and 17 year old criminals should be cut a break because their brains are NOT developed -- now runs a column wanting to let these undeveloped brains vote!
Oh yeah great idea. Immature brains run by bodies in hormonal over-drive with no legal adult rights or responsibilities and still considered to a minor child who needs a guardian --- some prospective voter........
116
Steinberg lays out the differences between hot and cold cognition. Maybe you should re-read the article? Issues like this are not as simple as the blanket age guidelines you suggest.
1
No, the NY Times is not advocating for letting 16 year olds vote. Laurence Steinberg is. NY Times allows opinions from all sides of an issue, even if its readership skews left.
1
The left's attempts to create more Democrat voters never ceases to amaze me
49
And the Right's onslaught against legal voters never ceases to amaze me.
2
The right’s attempts to quash any and all voter base that might vote Democratic (youth, blacks, Latinos, Asians, women, urban residents, middle class, single, college-educated, etc etc etc) never ceases to amaze me
3
Even the star of the teen-angst movement from Parkland, Florida, Mr. Hogg, appears to be nearly as old as Hope Hicks.
Oh, Hell, NO. 16 and 17 year olds in Red States would vote, exactly as their " preacher" and parents demand. Think about it, the last thing we need is more Trump voters. What's next, allowing grade schoolers to vote, with parental " supervision " ??? Some things are precious, sacred and serious. Not to be trifled with. Just saying.
19
There was an opinion piece just this week and reading the responses disgusted me. One man, who worked at the voting site for his district in 2016 wrote how barely anyone 30 or under voted in that PRESIDENTIAL election. He helped with the womens' march this past Jan. He asked dozens of young women, who were all angry, if they voted in the election. Blank stares. One called him an old man. Another person (a man) wrote in his response how young workers (especially young m/w but mostly women) daily talk of how they cannot stand this political state we are in (I am trying to put this lightly). He asks "Did you vote?" And the blank faces do not say "Hell yeah, every election, every year since I turned 18! Even if it is for electing the local animal control officer!" They say nothing because that is what they did. The shock and pain I felt reading these accounts is still with me. I do not feel like letting even younger people choose to not excersise their vote. Rather, I would like to see an age limit put on our elected reps. If you are 65 you can not run for office and if you turn 65 while in office consider it your last term because it should be! You have to be 35 to be pres. I would like to amend that to say: you have to be between 30 and 64 to be eligible for running for the office. Change the ages on congressional seats as well. When it was written it was done by a bunch of wealthy old men (who were very flawed as we all are) and I see not much has changed.
9
I work with 16-18 year olds. Many--not all--but many are a hell of a lot more reflective, honest, and certainly all are far less corrupt than anyone in this administration. Many, if not all, work hard--in school (mostly) as well as many working long additional hours at low wage, boring and often grinding jobs...thereby proving themselves far more diligent and dedicated than my own Congressperson (that's you Erik Paulsen!). So, why shouldn't they vote? Whenever I hear a member of Congress speak or see the endless grammatical failures as well intellectual ineptitude of the President I think, oh yes, most 16 year olds have it all over these people. Let them vote! Their futures may depend on it.
37
The 1978 California primary election that included the infamous Proposition 13 was the day before I turned 18. As I was then away from home and nearing the end of my freshman year of college, I really wondered what made me less qualified to vote than the majority of my classmates.(In those days, it was not uncommon for "gifted" kids to skip a year or more of elementary school, a practice now fortunately abandoned.)
I remember staying up until midnight to see whether some sort of epiphany or other miraculous change would strike me once I became eligible to vote, after missing the election by one day. Alas, there were no trumpets, lightning flashing, whistles tooting, or anything else. Not that I really expected any such thing.
Perhaps, then, 16-year-olds might become eligible to vote by passing a qualification exam that assesses whatever intellectual, emotional, or other aspects of maturity distinguish an 18-year-old. The psychometric geniuses responsible for the proliferation (and adulation) of standardized testing could surely determine what those aspects are.
If the testing fee is high enough, this could increase the turnout of highly-qualified, highly-motivated voters, while creating additional revenue for shareholders of the testing-industrial complex. Unfortunately, that prospect is likely so unappealing to campaign donors-- who spend enormous sums persuading gullible people to vote against their own interests-- that they'd surely buy legislation to prevent it.
3
A test for a right to vote or the testing fee to support it surmounts to a literacy test and poll tax--the same barriers put in place to disenfranchise millions of minority voters before the Civil Rights Movement.
1
I agree that a fee would be inappropriate for the reason you cited. I also would not support a literacy test because it measures what you are able to put on paper, not what you are capable of understanding and coming to informed decisions about. But we do already use testing in many places. We administer a driving exam and field test in order to demonstrate driving competence before issuing a license . The same is true in numerous similar instances (e.g. medical licenses, legal licenses, brokerage licenses, etc.) where the public similarly could be if the individual was incompetent or sufficiently qualified at at what they are seeking to do. Wouldn't it be similarly fair, and in fact wise, to have some test to confirm that an individual possesses at least minimal competence and awareness before they become entitled to the power to vote and thereby greatly impact everyone else?
No, it’s not fair. Where’s the line? Who decides competence? What if you have a disability? If you do not pass the test, would there be due process? What if you pay property taxes but can’t pass your local voting exam? Can you still vote in local referendums related to your taxes? Ultimately, you need to trust your neighbor and keep the right to vote sacred. The most impartial cutoff is age, regardless of maturity.
I don't have any scientific evidence to back this up, but as a high school teacher for 30 years I'd say that if we are willing to put the nuclear codes in the hands of the current administration we should be willing to let younger voters have their say as it is their futures the "adults" are flushing down the toilet.
201
What a truly ridiculous and simplistic argument.
You certainly are entitled to your opinion about the risks associated with having the nuclear codes in the hands of the current administration. But attempting to use that emotionally charged red meat issue as justification for an entirely separate and wholly unrelated issue demonstrates the very simplistic thinking that we all as parents try to mature our children beyond. That such an argument comes from a teacher makes me very concerned about the education our children are receiving, in particular the critical thinking and problem solving skills that our schools are intended to foster.
2
What a truly ridiculous and simplistic argument.
You certainly are entitled to your opinion about the risks associated with having the nuclear codes in the hands of the current administration. But attempting to use that emotionally charged red meat issue as justification for an entirely separate and wholly unrelated issue demonstrates the very simplistic thinking that we all as parents try to mature our children beyond. That such an argument comes from a teacher makes me very concerned about the education our children are receiving, in particular the critical thinking and problem solving skills that our schools are intended to foster.
1
I suppose the private schools Trump attended prepared him much better for critical thinking.
And is it "red meat" or simplistic to consider how many 16 year olds are now serving lengthy prison terms when sentenced as adults by a justice system that does, apparently, see them as fully formed?
1
There are thoughtful people who are 14 and idiots who are 44. According to what we know about psychology, 16 year olds do not have fully developed higher order reasoning. Lowering the voting age to 16 would nave far fewer benefits than were argued here. Get rid of the electoral college. That would be a significant improvement.
150
Dr. Steinberg, the author of this piece, is probably the most respected living scholar on the period of adolescence. He knows more about the development of higher order reasoning in adolescence than 99.999999% of the population, so I would respectfully submit that he knows more than you do about psychology. I do not disagree that we should get rid of the electoral college but that is not likely to happen since those who benefit from it have more representation in Congress.
3
Jim,
The Electoral College is the Genius that keeps the Union together.
I would be much more in favour of a straightforward exam
on Current Events, History, Economics and Law and if you
fail you cannot vote.
2
If the 2016 election showed us anything it's that nearly half the country is incapable of choosing intelligently for a candidate who will work in their best interest. So giving the vote to 16 year olds won't change that, but it might at least get them more involved with our democracy.
1
Larry, baby, you got to be kidding....we don't even let them drink at that age, and all the garbage these kids are filling their heads with makes me question you and your judgement.
Whats next, kids on juries. I understand no one is going to read your column unless you juice it up a little but lets get real here...
25
To paraphrase an old Hollywood movie: "When I was 16, I couldn't believe how stupid my parents were. When I reached 18, I was surprised to see how much they had learned in two years."
21
This is a joke, right?
27
Since the Vietnam War is over the voting age should be raised back up to 21.
20
Well, this may just be the most half-baked, lame brained, knot headed, and idiotic idea since electing a reality TV actor (not "star"--- just actor) as President of the USA.
This country gets more stupid with each passing hour.
14
My daughter is 14 and thinks those 15 and older are idiots. Lower the voting age to 14.
4
“...indolent narcissists whose brains have been addled by smartphones.”
Apt description of the tweeter-in-chief.
12
An person's frontal lobe is not fully developed until the age of 25+/-. The idea that a kid who essentially doesn't think with logic (until older), and makes a lot of emotion based decisions, could make an important decision like this is ridiculous. Plus, these kids are eating tide-pods.. Let that sink in.
11
Did you read the article??? He explains and clarifies the research. From your response, it appears you read only the title.
I am thinking we should raise it -- to 60! Let's entrust our future to the post-hormonal -- but also ideally pre-demented (sorry, Donald!).
2
Cold Cognition? Why not use verbal ability which usually is apparent by 24 months? Then we can elect the tooth fairy.
3
I was a anarchist when I was 16. I was an idiot when I was 16.
If anything, the voting age should be raised to 21. 18 year olds are not adults any more, they are still children. Millenials didn't become adults until they were like 25 years old and some of them still live in their parents basement.
Besides, letting 16 year olds vote will just mean a huge group of uneducated people without high school degrees voting, which is a recipe for stupid choices that further dilute the voice of educated informed people in this nation.
Remember, most 16 year olds in this nation can barely do math, read, or write. Most 16 year olds in this nation aren't going to go to college. Most 16 year olds in this nation spent absolutely no time thinking about anything besides themselves. I don't believe they should vote.
22
Gee Professor; lets just lower the voting age to 3; Toddlers should have a say about the types of materials used in their diapers; Diaper rash is far more prevalent than school shootings.
10
Yes, I am all for giving the tide pod eating, cannot have a conversation with a human and can't exist without having their face buried in a device generation the vote earlier than 18.
My question is, does the professor even know any teenagers to write such a ridiculous piece?
10
Probably the dumbest thing I have ever read. How does someone with no responsibilities except taking out the garbage or baby sitting going to add value to our democracy? With very few exceptions, they don't pay income taxes but they are going to have the same vote as taxpayers do? As it is they are still clueless when they enter the workforce in their 20's. We all were.
If we don't trust an 18, 19 or 20 year old to buy a gun, why would trust a 16 year old with the vote.
if anything, we should raise the voting age back to 21.
89
@BC: Some good points, but your complaint that they are not current tax payers is actually a good reason they *should* vote. That magical "tax cut", you keep hearing about where everyone is going to be sprinkled with money? Well, take a guess where that money is coming from. Yup, it's our kids. Congress didn't actually have excess money for a tax cut, so instead those lowlifes increased the debt and pointed at the next generation saying, "they'll pay for it."
If a 16-year-old's parents pretended to get a raise and ordered "a round for the house", but actually took the money out of a credit card the teen would have to pay off, I think it'd be the teen's right to cut up that card.
3
Following your logic, individuals of any age who are not employed, who are homemakers ("take out the garbage", provide child care), or who don't pay income taxes, don't "add value" to democracy.
3
Would the author also change the age of consent for sex to 16 for the same reason? A lot of people who have been charged with sex abuse would be off the hook. Just how far does this this go? As a 30 year high school teacher, I agree that students can be reflective when WE put them in that situation. The trouble is, that is not where most mid-teens spend their time. They are usually out testing limits and still learning to integrate the calm moments into their thinking. Hot moments still have a much different hold on them.
A 16 year old is not mature enough to vote. Their brains are still growing. As a parent, most 16 year olds I know, don't even drive yet.
4
I have only two words why this is idiocy: neural pruning. Those rapidly growing synaptic connections grown all during childhood are pruned during adolescence, leaving teens impulsive, emotional, and prone to act stupid. There is some question whether 18 is even a good time to give such responsibility - especially since we say they're not mature enough to drink alcohol. NO, just no.
3
Why wait until 16?
First grade starts at 6.
2
My first reaction was that his was a hare brained idea. But maybe not. We don't give a flip about kids in this country because they can't vote. We favor teachers' unions over kids. Ask any kid in the foster system how well they think it's working. If the New York Times bothered to cover the Walk for Life they would be shocked at the number of young people attending and those numbers grow every year. They are the pro-life generation and guns are anti-life
24
It is a harebrained idea. That's how the 18 y.o. got the vote. They cried that they couldn't vote for the people who would send them off to war, but the draft was ended. As an election inspector, I see very few 18 y.o. voting & when they do come in, they generally have no clue about what the issues are or who they should be voting for. We need more clued-in voters, not clue-less younger voters. The voting age should be raised back to 21.
Lots of research and buzz lately about young men's brains not maturing until their 20s. So there is logic behind raising the age at which they can buy guns. Lowering the age of voting runs counter too all the latest research. Wonder if the author has spent time with teenagers.
44
Wonder if you have any idea who the author is.
Hopefully this is satire. If you have ever met a 16 year old, you will immediately realize this is the worst idea ever.
12
But they're too irresponsible to buy firearms, alcohol, cigarettes, make decisions about their health without parental consent . . . ?
24
Why not deuce it to six so kids can vote on school lunch?
1
Dear politicians, isn't it a felony to get your hands on a 16-year-old?
3
perhaps the issue is not about allowing young teenagers to vote, but revoking the voting rights of those who are too stupid to recognize the importance of voting and being informed citizens in the first place. a good test would be to recite the preamble of the constitution and name all 10 of the original bill of rights protections as a start. if you can't or won't know the basis of what this country is about, you shouldn't have the right or ability to direct it; sorry if you are just along for the ride - we already have plenty of people like that in congress.
2
Great. Kids who are being brainwashed by high school teachers, getting their "news" from Facebook and Twitter, never having held a job or being responsible for anybody, with virtually no life experience voting on life or death issues. Probably no worse than the current low information voters who have absolutely no clue what is going on in the world voting straight party line (Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter). No wonder we ended up with a race between a corrupt liar vs a vulgar barbarian, and the barbarian won.
3
I say raise the voting age to 35.
It's bad enough we have an adolescent in the White House.
9
This is a ludicrous idea.
While I am on the side of less guns and more gun control, a 16-year-old has very little knowledge of the world outside their own and they are still getting their basic education.
And let's face it, the basic primary and high school education in this country is, on the whole, pathetic in relation to other developed countries. Heck, Cuba has a better literacy rate than we do!
They must have their voice it's true, but let's not make an already absurd voting situation in this country (the way the primaries are set up; the antiquated Electoral College, etc.) that much worse.
2
what a nutty idea!! There are no children of 16 or 18 for that matter that have enough common sense or depth of knowledge to vote intelligently. As we note, children and young adults tend to be very shallow and liberal in their thinking, After years of experience and realizations of reality, many adults become more conservative and by the age of 60, mostly conservative. This idea is a liberal idea to get more voters and create a permanent liberal majority just like their push for massive amnesty for illegals. Democrats have lost the middle and working class of the current citizens so this is the new scheme.
3
More one-issue voters? No thanks.
4
To all those using the slippery slope argument, I realize you think you are being cute but remember the company you keep when employing that dubious tacit. Remember the FOX crowd is in large part, old, very old and very very old.
1
Let four million kids get to vote a couple years early? How about while we're at it let's give the four million ADULT citizens of Washington DC and Puerto Rico full 2-chamber Congressional voting representation?
2
Maybe some sort of age/ability/skill threshold should be instituted for those writing articles for the New York Times' Sunday Review.
4
Absolutely not. For starters, at 16 all kids will essentially vote the way of their parents. Second, if adults can hardly follow politics I see no reason to think sixteen year old kids can. Finally, I think all things, should be legal at 21. This means getting rid of these stupid arcane rules in the constitution which limit people who can run for office until they are 35. I have to say this is my most disliked piece in the NYT today. God awful.
1
You are so DRACONIAN! You are actually promoting the denial of voting rights to children UNDER 16! Unbelievable! ALL children should have the right to vote right down to age 0. Maybe 1 day after birth. Give them a chance to open their eyes a bit. That sounds fair to me. They don't even need to be able to understand anything, just point, or wave, or blink. We will "help" them to vote.
2
So people at age 16 are mature enough to vote but have to wait another 5 years to be mature enough to buy a gun. Who can argue with logic like that?
Why? We can't get the 18 to 21 year olds to vote now. They all believe that the whole system is corrupt so don't even register to vote. The majority of 16 year old that I know are among the most uninformed people in the world.
Again a failure to understand this republic and its constitution. Any state can set any voting age as long as it is not greater than 18 and enfranchises both sexes equally. There is no such thing as "a federal voting age". All elections, all votes, are done under state authority. If New York or Hawaii or Alaska wanted to pass a law giving the vote to 16 year-old's, or kindergartners for that matter, there's nothing any other state or any federal authority could do to stop them.
But frankly it's a dumb idea any way.
Children, raised on violent video games, television shows and movies, living in a culture where violence - especially against brown-skinned, Middle Easterners, and anyone who isn't "one of them" who happen to be living where our oil is under their sand, where death and destruction of other cultures is admired and encouraged - yes, Larry, they are are perfect advisors on societal issues. Those same kids who have come forward to speak at the CNN symposium on gun violence found themselves being coached by the media to ask certain questions or respond in a way that supports the meme du jour. If cognitive awareness is your ruler by which children should be judged, then let's give unborn children a voting chance, since we know that they are very aware of their surroundings but lack the verbal skill to express their feelings. Except for a kick or two…One kick for Republican issues. Two kicks for Democrat issues. It's pretty obvious that being singularly unconscious to one's situation isn't a real issue - as a great proportion of our Senators and Congressmen are members of the walking dead, when it comes to doing something for the public good.
So lower it away…and let us reap the whirlwind of misguided do-gooders and the clueless.
'
1
Given that the brain does not fully develop in terms of judgement until about age 25 do we really want people who can be convinced that mom jeans are cool again or that Justin Bieber is the voice of a generation voting.
2
I do not think so, the maturity is not present or the experience, let along knowledge to make such judgements;many of their judgement ar made on emotions - the world cannot be run that way, but we need to listen to them and thake them into account.. Yes they are sensitive and smart and have good comments to make. In reality, our effort should be put to get the FULL COMPLIMENT of Americans who are able to vote, TO VOTE! This is the priority. DJM
1
Disagree.
The last part of the brain that develops, by about age 18, is the part that allow a person to have foresight.
Although many adults never fully develop this ability, adding younger voters who haven't yet developed a brain with foresight will only make the world a WORSE place.
1
If young people are not capable of making responsible decisions with a firearm, than how can they be trusted to make responsible decisions when voting for who should have control over our military and government? For the last two weeks, this newspaper has written that people under the age of 21 are not capable of making responsible decisions because their brains are not fully developed. Why should less mature people be given the right to vote? You can’t have it both ways—you are either capable of making responsible decisions or you’re not. If you think that a 16 year old is capable of making a responsible decision when voting, then they should be able to make responsible decisions while in possession of a firearm. If you don’t trust a 16 year old with a gun, then you should trust them to vote for who should be in a position of authority.
Voting requires more than just cognition. It requires common sense, which is only acquired after a few years of experience *using* those mature cognitive abilities.
At a minimum, voters should have left their carefully scripted and managed high school worlds and discovered that the real world is full of people who are nicer/meaner, smarter/dumber or more good/evil than the "grown ups" who ran their schools.
It's a bitter but important civics lesson.
Once they've had it, they are qualified to vote. Before that, they are just kids, waiting to be cynically manipulated by some PAC.
But absolutely, they should advocate for their own safety, or anything else they care about! Getting involved in any campaign is like "driver's ed" for voters.
"At a minimum, voters should have":
1) A predetermined qualifying IQ to vote;
2) A college degree in STEM with not less than a 3.5 GPA);
3) Have achieved the age of 30 years.
That the only qualification to vote is chronological age is ridiculous. A degree doesn't guarantee outcome; but it does ensure, for good or ill, that the most intelligent segment, on average, of the population is setting the nation's course. Sheep who think they are shepherds, eventually, will walk over a cliff.
"Age" and "experience" should count for absolutely nothing. As Thoreau said, "The old have not gained so much as they have lost."
And to answer the question in advance: Yes, in exchange for the franchise being restricted to the top 30%, I would gladly give up my right to vote. Anything to be rid of the Stupids.
What an obtuse presentation of tidbits of neuroscience and popular belief. Kids, and I mean 16 year olds, are not qualified to vote by virtue of a lack of life experience and general low level of understanding of the world. They would probably blend in to the greater voting body and not count statistically, but they do not "deserve" to have a say presuming a line has to be drawn somewhere. That truth stated, it would be interesting to take their vote virtually but not apply it to the outcome, to promote their participation and learn their view. This said some people would let their toddlers vote by throwing a spoon on the floor.
On this note there is little about the current protest scene by kids in Florida that extends the argument or offers wisdom. They are "ego barking" not speaking with due consideration of the public at large. Yes the issue compels full sympathy, no kids don't have the correct solutions. They are still very much inside their own heads.
2
Naturally the liberal professor assumes these teens will vote Democrat.
If he didn't think they would he wouldn't have written this.
3
Well, for one, the red-headed kid is holding up a sign that says "Ban Assault Rifles", which have been banned since 1934. Easy to be misinformed, which is exactly what the political advertisers and social-media experts will be doing to the high-schoolers.
1
When I was 16 I owned an AK-47. I would never have voted for gun control. Heck, at 16 I wouuld have voted to allow machine guns purchases without a background check.
Today I am a much smarter and better gun owner. I own an AR-15 and I would support raising the minimum wage at which to buy an assault rifle to 21.
So yeah, if you let me vote when I was 16 I'd have voted to put a SAW in every house. Now I have a brain though and would vote gladly for gun control.
2
Many states have raised the age of sexual consent to 18.
We don’t trust young people to drink until 21.
We have made it harder and harder for teenagers to get driver’s licenses.
Now teenagers will be banned from owning and perhaps even possessing guns. Even for hunting.
So 16 year olds can’t be trusted to have sex, drink, drive or hunt. But they are competent to vote?
2
Why stop at lowering the voting age to 16? Why not 14 or 15? I am being facetious as is this proposal of lowering the voting age to 16 is silly.
1
Every young person who spoke out publicly after the Florida shooting was more articulate, better informed and had a more advanced vocabulary level than the current occupant of the WH who can barely stumblebum his way through a teleprompter speech. Yes. let them vote. We may have a dunce as president but we can justifiably be proud of these young Americans. They are a credit to their parents, their teachers and their country.
1
16?, why not 5? 5 year olds go to school too. Reminds me of the movie "Wild in the Streets". And who knows what percentage of 16 and 17 year olds are really in favor of gun control? Folks might be surprized at how many are interested in guns and the NRA. Be careful what you wish for.
Nope.
Not when the US Constitution isn't a part of the high school curriculum until Junior or Senior year if high school.
Not when the critical thinking skills are only developed to the point of violent computer games and the Kardashian family.
Revamp their education to teach a better understanding of politics, civics and logic BEFORE they get to the voting booth.
I hate to say this - as I know this was improperly used to deny access to voting in the pat as a discrimination against black would-be voters - but requiring a test of the knowledge of a young voter might be a good thing. Please no write-in votes for Kendall or Kylie!
2
Silly to point of ridiculous proposal given all that we know about human development.
Adolescents brains have not developed to the point where they can easily take into account the range of consequences likely from their behavior. It means that the same people under the same set of circumstances could not be expected to vote the same as they would when their brains have matured.
It's just a fact of human development and if one looks at history, the times when the life expectancy was under thirty and most people exercising authority were adolescents, like during the middle ages, the result was hundreds of years of anarchy and near anarchy.
No keep it at 18. But - - 18,19,20 year olds... turn around and consider your younger brothers and sisters, classmates, friends... how can you make your vote help THEM out?
"It is well established that the brain undergoes a “rewiring” process that is not complete until approximately 25 years of age...Following neuronal proliferation, the brain rewires itself from the onset of puberty up until 24 years old, especially in the prefrontal cortex. ... The fact that brain development is not complete until near the age of 25 years refers specifically to the development of the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex, the part of the frontal lobes lying just behind the forehead, is responsible for cognitive analysis, abstract thought, and the moderation of correct behavior in social situations. The prefrontal cortex acquires information from all of the senses and orchestrates thoughts and actions in order to achieve specific goals."
Source: National Institute of Health https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/
Raise the voting age to 24.
1
Not a good idea. At 16, a kid is being tossed about by the perfect storm of simply growing up and trying to find their bearings, still finding out who they are and what they themselves believe in, let alone sorting out all the rubbish and worthless promises they hear from those running for office. Trying to keep it straight when you're a kid is just about all you can manage.
1
How are Dems going to take advantage of all the kids they indoctrinate in school if they can’t vote? Why not 10? I mean let’s take advantage of all that accumulated knowledge.
1
Maybe lowering the voting age would encourage deadbeat “older” citizens to vote.
What a crass comment about "older" voters. Talk about ageism. Deadbeat? Now people who don't vote (for whatever reason) are deadbeats? Nothing like criminalizing a voluntary activity. Disgusting.
When I first read the headline my initial reaction is, "What! Is Steinberg nuts?" But then it occurred to me that at 16-17 I was more than able to make good civic choices. If I could, so can today's students. Besides, it would make civics classes much more relevant.
1
This is the worst idea I have heard in a long long time!
2
Clickbait. Here's another 'serious' question: If kids are well-enough equipped and informed to cast a ballot and perhaps elect a madman with nuclear codes, then shouldn't they also be old enough to drink? Get married? Buy assault rifles? Go to war?
There are a number of very good reasons we do not allow this.
1
Twin the right to vote with meaningful civics experiences in high school. And, start at the local level like we did here in Maryland. Imagine a robust debate between two candidates for town mayor held at a high school assembly filled with voter eligible students. Imagine the debate topics relevant to those voters -- community college tuition, school safety, local environmental issues, etc. Major efforts are underway across America to register college students, but half of our kids don't go to college. We need to engage all of them in high school if we are to have an informed and engaged electorate.
1
Lower? This is nonsense. Want to change the age. Try 21, where it once was. The only reason it was lowered from there is that some thought that since you could be drafted at 18 then you should have the right to vote Go back to and while you are at it, everyone serves. This also accomplishes the "mixing", when the young get thrown together with people from different places and backgrounds which they do not get in the self ghettoization of their lives.
3
Are you kidding me? Surely you're joking? Are you serious? It's not that it will matter to the outcome of an election but it will surely contribute to the lowering of our general state of mind. Is there no difference between children and adults? Have we so destroyed education that now it doesn't matter? I cannot believe that this article could have been conceived let alone written without some thought to how this simply underlines the fact that America has been terminally dumbed down. I can no longer even pray for America any more. We have no more leaders, elites, thinkers, or substantive values. It is so utterly tragic that our forebears immigrated here with such high and deceptive hopes.
2
It seems to me that the "scientific case" that Steinberg gives for his conclusion is incomplete. Even if "cold cognitive ability" is in place by 16, an ability is only one relevant element. My having an ability does not imply the existence of the raw material on which to apply that ability, viz., knowledge. People aged 16 are not usually even high school graduates. And "the ability to reason logically," even including a disposition to take time before making a decision, is only one important ability among many. It is not the same thing as understanding or wisdom. Granted, not everybody who currently does have the vote is going to get 100% on the last two, including me, but it doesn't seem to me that Steinberg's "scientific case" is very well thought out.
I agree, not only because of the firearms issue, but other issues such as health care and the environment which will affect them just as heavily. I don't see this initiative getting very far as long as Republicans control the legislative agenda, however. They are already thoroughly engaged in voter suppression against other demographics whom they know their views are out of step with, and I suspect the youth vote would skew heavily against the GOP as well.
1
The brains of children achieve adult size at about 11 years old. Their ability to reason is pretty good by 13 and by 16 they are showing enough of their potential to predict how well they will do by 18 years of age as far as the abilities to reason and to solve problems. But despite all of this, until they are 25, they are not fully mature. At 16 their minds work well but they still have not matured enough to routinely consider all the likely consequences of their acts. Which is why in most respects, society requires adults to approve of most of their choices. It's also a fact that the lack of maturity is reflected in more traffic accidents by 16 year olds than 18 year olds and more problems with alcohol. By 18 they have matured enough to make a lot better decisions than at 16. So it would tend to increase the kind of judgment in the voting booth that produces bad choices in elected officials and in ballot initiatives.
1
The threshold of 18 exists because that is when children become legal adults. If we lower the voting age, then we are saying 16-year-olds can decide major “adult decisions.” Making these decisions is a privilege that derives from the corresponding adult responsibilities. Such responsibilities include paying taxes and registering for the draft. It is irresponsible to suggest we should bestow the privilege without the responsibility. It is also wrong, in my opinion, to allow a 16-year-old to serve in the military, or take on these other responsibilities at such a young age. 16 years should not be allowed to vote; this isn’t a psychological problem, it’s a civics and moral problem.
1
The Left can not have it both ways. Either teenagers do not have the appropriate cognitive development to be charged as adults and/or sentenced to death or LWOP or they do. Which is it? The fact is that they don't. Science, so loved by the Left, is clear on this. Minimum draft, driving, voting, drinking, smoking, gun purchasing age, etc. should be 21.
4
MH and others who keep laying the early voting issue on the Dems and the "Left": Are you Russian bots, or do you not realize that most of the comments here, as well as the issue of voting age is NOT a partisan issue? We are already being divided as a nation by the NRA...do we want to be divided on EVERY issue? The question here is if a 16 yr old has the maturity to take on the responsibility of voting which has ramifications on many issues. YES, their voices should be heard. It is good practice for when they are adults and can represent their world view with their vote. But at 16 is not the right time. And this is NOT a partisan politics discussion.
I am not necessarily opposed to this idea, but let's be consistent. If we are to recognize 16 year olds as mature enough to vote, then we need to also recognize 16 year olds as mature enough to face the consequences of committing crimes, entering contracts, giving consent, etc.
67
The age threshold for "adulthood" with respect to crimes, consent etc. are determined by the individual states, and is already 16 or lower in many states. But the Federal government would not seem to have the power to set this threshold.
2
They already do. Visit your local Juvenile Jail!
1
I am so disappointed with all of the outrage at this idea. It is true, not all youth are well informed on the issues of the day, not all have well reason and thoughtful opinions on current events, not all are altruistic and looking out for the greater good of society, but then neither are those over 18. Maybe instead of a voting age we should have a test of awareness of current events, a test of a knowledge of history (those who do not know it are doomed to repeat it), and a test for empathy for those who have less than us. I suspect many who are over 18 would fail this test miserably, and many under 18 would pass with flying colors. If we are going to make our children targets in our insatiable lust for guns we should arm them with the one true defense - the right to vote.
1
Absolutely not. We should raise both the voting age and the gun buying age to 21, and Mr. Steinberg's voting age to 100.
6
School shootings are tragic. The actions of a small number of teenagers reacting politically to them is admirable. They are also not significant enough to warrant lowering the voting age.
We have plenty of college graduates not truly educated enough to vote, and I have a feeling most of us would cringe at the prospect of our younger selves (and particularly our peers at that time) having voting rights.
The political efforts of this age group notwithstanding, they are also the group giving us The Tide Pod Challenge.
2
This is a bad idea. The draft was the reason to lower the voting age to 18 but I see no equally compelling reason to lower it to 16.
3
Two questions: First, Why is it that many high schoolers can't pass a citizenship test (which we would tackle the American way, by hiring private consultants to help schools teach to the test)?
Second, Would that relaxing of minimum age requirements apply to Russia, too?
Never! Never! Us adults are doing such a great job!
1
I am just amazed by the "groups" salivating at the idea of 16 year olds voting.
Wishfully hoping that they would be "liberal" which is really not true.
They are kids and need to understand how to think first out of their emotions otherwise they can be turned into "robots" for any change good or bad.
Yes their frustration at the current Congress and Presidency is justifiable , we have history speaking for such student activists from 60s' and 70's in USA or South Korea which ultimately lead to democracy.
But..
I am sure world has not forgotten the child soldiers of Africa or the Taliban or other more fiercer counterparts .
I believe its the parents and adult's job to take in account these "young adult's" frustration and vote with our mind and do the needful.
26
Most 16 year-olds do not have the maturity nor life experience to vote. At that age most are obsessed with social media and other superficial things. Even 18, the age of majority in most states, is too young, but not too young to be conscripted into military service. Even at 18 individuals are still highly impressionable and malleable, that’s why the military wants them young. Old enough to kill, but not drink a beer! Perhaps then the legal age for voting should be 21, the same age to legally drink alcohol.
32
They did a study of World War II soldiers.
In terms of getting soldiers to Volunteer for an unknown mission
17-19 will eagerly sign up, after that fewer and fewer soldiers will
volunteer and if they have a family, almost none.
1
@John Brown,
Thanks, you have proven my point, 18-year-olds are easily impressionable; think about in terms of voting.
One of the strongest arguments for allowing 18-year-olds to vote was that they could be conscripted and sent to war.
Well, I disagree but I also think if Paul Henry Gingerich could be tried as an adult when he was only 12 when he took part in the killing of a Warsaw man then the legal adult age for every one in the USA should have been lowered to 12 years old. That it was not made the case of Paul Henry Gingerich a travesty of justice.
I also know that my mother always voted for the best looking politician that was running in any election she could vote in. She would never vote for a person of color regardless of what color their skin was. She wouldn't vote for a female either because we women were too emotional to have the power to start a war or change the law. She was outraged when Shirley Anitia Chisholm was elected to congress.
But I believe that the age of 21 is still too young to be considered a young adult and that the legal age should be raised to 24. It is not that I think one person of any age group should have more rights than another, or that all people in any age group are all the same. I do think the USA's educational system is so poor that a young adult must go to college for 4 years just to know what I knew when I graduated from high school in the 60s. I also think that high school should end at 15 and children be channeled into either trade schools or colleges then. High school, even during my teenage time, was a waste of time.
2
But they won't vote. 19% voting rate for those 18-29. Good luck.
1
Voters 18-25 are the lowest participant age group in elections.
Why would voters 16-18 behave differently?
1
They already have the vote: they vote for class president, homecoming queen, singers on television. Thinking seriously about real politics will interfere with their most important activity: updating social media, taking selfies and swiping right. Professor Steinberg is engaged in the most important activity that academics, divorced from the real world, spend their time on - virtue signaling.
3
Your contempt for teenagers is both palpable and unfortunate. Some of the people I've met who are best able to consider multiple perspectives and grapple with difficult moral arguments in trying to come to their own conclusions rather than just resorting to reflective partisan tribalism are young people. The reason I have hope for the future of our democracy is some of the young people who I have worked with. I recently attended a discussion on gun control that was organized by two tenth graders and attended by forty or fifty high school students. The discussion made a deep impression on me. The students were informed, thoughtful, able to see nuance, and able to rationally and respectfully discuss complex issues with people they disagreed with. If members of the United States Congress and the talking heads on TV could conduct themselves so thoughtfully, we'd be a much better country.
33
Brilliant! 16 year olds are smart enough and informed enough to have thoughtful opinions and views and should have the right to express themselves with a vote.
1
Sixteen-year-olds would only agree to this if they could cast their ballots on Facebook. Via their phones.
2
Maybe take a look at how they manage high school elections before letting them into national elections. Bringing in new voters that aren't mature enough to understand the implications of their vote and are easily swayed by how much they "like" a candidate is a recipe for empowering demagogues. Or maybe just spend some time managing teen age employees in a job setting to get a feel for how they actually weigh their responsibilities against their desires. There's really no rationale basis for this, other than a desire to exploit their political innocence for your own issues.
3
"...voters that aren't mature enough to understand the implications of their vote and are easily swayed by how much they "like" a candidate is a recipe for empowering demagogues..."
I think you just described a solid majority of voters over 50. Age makes no difference here, and I think today most teens have better critical thinking skills and better understanding of their world than most baby-boomers. Let them vote!
1
"most teens have better critical thinking skills and understanding of their world than most baby boomers." Really, a disgusting, false slam on the older generation. The younger generation is busy snapping selfies, being slaves to Facebook and Instagram, "voting" for celebrities, etc. Sixteen-year-olds would vote according to their hormones and best "selfie".
Wait. Don't we want to raise the age at which you can purchase a gun to 21? So by what logic are 18 year olds not to be trusted buying a gun but 16 year olds should be voting? I know the immediate impact of a gun purchase is potentially much more violent but voting is no joke either. Isn't the logic the assessment of the issues of the still developing teen mind the same? So do we let them buy guns and vote at 16 or do we make them wait till 21 for both?
6
Does this psychologist belong to the same group of psychologists that now believes adolesence lasts til 25 ? If so why would you want to lower the voting age? If anything I think we should raise the voting and drinking age and the age to purchase weapons to 25. Yes it sounds good to let them vote if they will vote to increase their own security. But wait until these youngsters start to vote for things you don't want like astronomical tax increases because they don't have the mental maturity to make fully informed decisions.. Most don't hold a job yet or pay taxes. My vote is they get no vote until they have some skin in the game. Otherwise they will just be mimicing their parent's vote. Is that fair to people who have no children? Thanks for letting me have my opinion.
6
So young people can’t be trusted with guns until they’re 21, but they should be given the right to vote when they’re 16 because we trust that they understand enough about civics and the history of the Bill of Rights to influence gun policy?
3
We absolutely do not need to lower the voting age to 16. What our country needs is to have a weekend or a holiday when voting occurs to ensure maximum participation in the voting process. This Tuesday voting is designed to exclude hourly workers, etc. Also, a national holiday for voting will highlight the importance of voting. Lowering the age to 16 is no good. A lot of adults are so uneducated about the issues, kids that age are clueless even until age 20. We should increase the age if anything, just like we should for driving, age of consent for sex, and introduce a mandatory training program for those who wish to become parents. That will rid our country of a lot of ills, not reducing the voting age to 16.
2
If anything, most people would raise the age. It’s hard to defend the hot and cold idea: you still have decide on the temperature that marks the line of demarcation.
1
Terrible idea. Young people are passionate and as intelligent as anyone else, but passion and raw intelligence are not sufficient for wise voting. Missing is wisdom and judgment, which, hate to say it, come with age and experience. It's easy to develop an opinion; it's another thing to understand what that opinion means, the inevitable consequences and trade-offs. Moreover, the art of compromise (unfortunately lacking among the supposedly older and wiser), necessary for a well-functioning society, is something that is rarely witnessed among the passionate young.
6
Wrong. Lowering the voting age won't accomplish anything. Just look at voter turnout among 18-34 year olds. It's abysmal and they have a lot more at stake with their own children, mortgages, 401Ks than the 16-year-old glued to their Snapchat account has and even THEY aren't voting!
I think it's great that there's some motivated high school students who marched on Washington. I applaud their efforts. But compare that to the Civil Rights era marches and I think you have to put things in perspective. This generation has a communication ability that no previous generation has had. And yet the squander it on posting photos of what they had for lunch. The government will respond to voter pressure, but it's going to take a lot more than what we've seen over the past couple weeks. And with the reality star in office, I'd say our chances are pretty slim to enact what's really necessary ... a comprehensive assault weapons ban.
However ... just imagine if all these high school students mobilized against the NRA? They outnumber their membership, they understand technology more than the NRA's geriatric demographic and they're pretty close to that age bracket coveted by marketing and corporate America for their buying power. No other generation has the body count they have. Wayne LaPierre is already scared. Just look at his speeches. Seize the moment and keep the pressure on, high schoolers. And when you're 18, kick the bums out of office who didn't listen to you.
31
Lowering the voting age didn't end the Vietnam war, nor did it prevent the morass that is Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor will it lead to more rational voting by young people, especially those nurtured in the digital culture of You Tube and Instagram. In other words, they are not entirely informed or rational decision-makers. The first thing they would do is support legislation to lower the drinking age to 16. Perhaps guns would follow, it's not at all a sure bet that they would vote for supporters of tighter controls. So, lots of very young inebriated drivers who are risk-friendly and easy to fire up emotionally, with access to guns. We don't let them carry nitroglycerine, why would we let them vote themselves access to the lethal mix of alcohol and guns?
3
Why have any age restrictions on voting? For that matter, why have ANY restrictions on voting? Why shouldn't any citizen of Planet Earth have the right to vote in US election?
The universal laws of diversity and inclusion demand that US elections be absolutely unrestricted.
E pluribus Unum.
2
I think many students would be excited to vote at 16 and would become more active in their communities. Anyone who stereotypes young people as only selfish and phone addicts has forgotten their youth or does not understand their child.
68
I find it foolish in the extreme to consider lowering the voting age over one single issue. What about the myriad of other issues a 16 year old is not equipped to properly understand? I challenge anyone to recall when they were 16, and say with all honesty and integrity that the things they thought and believed at that time, did not change drastically just a few years later when life is not suddenly about High School and the peer pressure involved. Children of this age are, by and large, far too susceptible to believing things just to seem cool or normal, and to push for radical agendas. Life is not the same for anyone of this age, who have not yet experienced the real world in any capacity.
35
Raise the voting age to 30 and institute a strict literacy test. There is way too much ill-informed voting.
3
I have the feeling the most ill-informed are well over 30.
1
i disagree. Young people don't have the mental maturity to vote. The age should rise to the age of 21. Not only voting, but buying cigarettes, alcohol(which is currently the case), joining the armed forces, buying guns, taking out loans, signing contracts, geting married, etc. The Supreme Court used current medical science studies that says most individuals' brains don't mature until the age of 25, when they made the decision(s) to strike down the death penalty and life without parole for those under 18. I think the Court should have gone further by banning states from setting the adult age at 18; 21 should be the minimum age establishing "Adulthood". We already have millions of so-called "Adults" who are too mentally immature to make wise voting decisions, who needs kids voting their hormones anyway?
25
Only if they make the minimum age for gun ownership 25.
Voting is a sacred franchise, purchased by the blood of brave Americans willing to die for the freedoms we now enjoy. I agree. The voting age should be changed....but from 18 to 21. You can not consume a beer in our country until you are 21. Twenty-one is generally thought of as the age of responsibility. Most Eighteen year olds know nothing of sacrifice or responsibility. They are generally consumed with trivial matters and are being supported by their parents. Most eighteen year olds make an uninformed decisions, voting overwhelmingly democrat, because they correctly perceive such a vote will get them "free stuff, " hand outs and endless cradle to grave entitlements. So change the voting age to 21. We need responsible, independent, educated and intelligent people voting, not adolescents.
30
Yes, but age doesn't necessarily come with knowledge and understanding. It is no guarantee of informed decision.
In America whether 16 or 21 intelligence has been on a downward slide for years. Look who's president. The sum total of less than intelligent voting.
Also raise the legal age for purchasing a gun.
How about we split the difference and allow registration at 16 and the vote at 17?
Children, raised on violent video games, television shows and movies, living in a culture where violence - especially against brown-skinned, Middle Easterners, and anyone who isn't "one of them" who happen to be living where our oil is under their sand, where death and destruction of other cultures is admired and encouraged - yes, Larry, they are are perfect advisors on societal issues. Those same kids who have come forward to speak at the CNN symposium on gun violence found themselves being coached by the media to ask certain questions or respond in a way that supports the meme du jour. If cognitive awareness is your ruler by which children should be judged, then let's give unborn children a voting chance, since we know that they are very aware of their surroundings but lack the verbal skill to express their feelings. Except for a kick or two…One kick for Republican issues. Two kicks for Democrat issues. It's pretty obvious that being singularly unconscious to one's situation isn't a real issue - as a great proportion of our Senators and Congressmen are members of the walking dead, when it comes to doing something for the public good.
So lower it away…and let us reap the whirlwind of misguided do-gooders and the clueless.
1
It's taxation without representation . Kids pay taxes. It's as simple and American as that
Having just graduated two kids from high school, my first thought was "The author is out of his mind." But every argument I was going to bring up fell apart. Kids that age are emotional and overly influenced by friends. They are subject to making decisions based on fashion, the coolness factor, or how they think other people will interpret their actions. Many teenagers are impulsive and don't always weigh the evidence and look at both sides before making a decision.
Well, adults don't fare any better on any of the aforementioned tendencies. Now that our leaders are acting like children maybe it's time for our children to be leaders.
2
BH, if you think that adults don't fare any better on the things you mentioned, why didn't you let your teenage kids call the shots?
1
I vote differently than I did at eighteen. My politics are different. My financial status is different. I would have had an abortion for an accidental pregnancy at 25, but not at 35. None of what I believed was wrong; I was just at a different stage in my life. I have beliefs different from people my age with different educations, life experiences, and geographical locations. I may vote differently from them because I am not them. Yes, some 16-year olds may mimic their parents voting choices. The same parroting of beliefs can be said of Fox News enthusiasts. Every excuse for not allowing 16 year olds to vote could be used to disenfranchise a currently voting citizen.
4
Young people would wield considerably more voting power just by doing all the things we should have done long ago: automatic registration when being issued a driver's license, universal same-day registration, voting either on Saturdays or declared a holiday, universal mail-in voting open a month before voting day, non-partisan state-level election commissions completely independent from legislative majorities, an end to gerrymandering, maximum 30 minute wait times at all polling places (with real accountability for failure), stringent limits on individual campaign contributions, and total elimination of corporate contributions.
If these things were in place, the idea of lowering the voting age to 16 would seem (and would actually be) superfluous.
A better solution: Let 16-year-olds participate in binding votes to decide in many ways how schools operate, especially whether to allow teachers or other authority figures to have guns on campus. This would allow students to have a sense of "ownership" of their schools and foster civic-mindedness and the habit of voting.
2
As a high school student myself, I'm not too opposed to the idea that teenagers should be allowed to vote at sixteen. It would give some of us the chance to be heard a little better, and let's face it, all teenagers really want to be is heard and understood. And with the massive amounts of maturity brewing in these angry American teens, it sounds unjust to let them go unnoticed By giving them the right to actively vote and be apart of it rather than outside on the streets picketing for it, they should have the right to a metaphorical megaphone and let them continue with their passionate demands for justice and safety. These are trivial times, and the more voices we have to navigate them the better. Adults and teens must come together now more than ever if we want to have a safer society, and that starts with giving us a chance. A chance to be more than what the world thinks we are. A chance to change the world rather than let it change and hurt us instead.
This essay is a good example of the cold-cognition skills described therein. It uses statistical and science-based reasoning to make the argument that 16 yr olds should be able to vote. As a parent of three, two of whom are adults and one who is still a teen, I agree with this. I truly believe the world would be a better place if we allowed younger people to vote. But I'm still worried about the group of 18-24 yr olds who don't vote in the numbers they should. We need to find ways to get them to the polls, too. Is it possible that a 16 yr old who votes could shame or otherwise encourage an 18 - 24 yr old into doing the same?
2
As they say, OMG. In my house nobody gets dinner until we have all voted. And I check for stickers. Easiest way to get young voter participation. They always came with me when they were younger so they are familiar with the process and don't see it as an usual or difficult or optional thing to do.
I guess it depends on who the 16 year old is. My son is 16, and he is very smart and well-informed. He tells me he discusses current events and politics in his group at school, which includes kids on the left and the right. However, while his group may be pretty advanced and great at discussing the issues, not everyone is. He has also observed a lot of uninformed kids who just parrot what they hear on social media or from their parents, who are unable to explain in their own words why they espouse those views.
13
I know a lot of 40 and 50 year-olds that shouldn't be allowed in the same neighborhood as a voting booth. They know nothing about the issues.
2
I agree with your thoughts. However, I also know a lot of adults who simply parrot what they hear on Fox News or Slate.
1
That doesn't sound any different than people over 18.
2
There's ample research showing that the latest generations are maturing more slowly than previous generations. We should be moving the age of majority for all purposes higher, to 21, not lower.
41
It is an idea worth trying.
A major added reason would be that the earlier we start to vote, the more likely we are to vote in the future. If teens vote in the last 2 years of high school, they may get in the habit of paying attention and seeing this as something every good citizen does. And of course they will be discussing toics related to our politics at school which may make them more interested in playing an active role
4
So why not let 10 year old vote?
1
I know plenty of young people who are sensible. David Hogg being, in my view, first among equals there. Those teachers at Stoneman Douglas HS must be really good, because they've brought up some brilliant kids.
Women who are abused by gun owners should have recourse. But we will hear suggestions that they are safer, though they are not.
Kids today are victims of adult choices on climate and a range of other subjects. Since they will suffer the most, they should have a voice.
Good argument, though I don't think all teenagers are aware of the complexity of their social media, they are likely to become better informed if their voice is valued.
3
While living in Bucks County, Pennsylvania I ran a branch of a national nonprofit called Kids Voting. The concept was simple. Get elementary through high school kids out to the polls, the REAL polling sites, to "vote" on election day. This was civic education at it's best though the unsaid mission was to get the parents to the poles to vote! High school kids voted at school or volunteered at the Kids Voting local polls with a push for them to register! My own daughter whose birthday is November 1 realized that she could register before her 18th birthday and vote in the upcoming election, which by the way, was a midterm, low turnout election! She studied the League of Women's Voters book on the candidates and issues and took a good 10-15 minutes in the voting booth. She has been an informed voter in every election since. Regardless of lowering the voting age, all high school seniors should register and vote! My nonprofit has since died but I often think about all of the students who had a taste of democracy and voting at an early age. And kudos to the schools and parents that supported our efforts and saw civics as an important duty.
3
In general, with age comes maturity and with maturity comes the ability to understand nuance.
While some sixteen-year-olds may have such maturity, overwhelmingly most do not' they are not ready to vote.
Sure, many of those over eighteen also lack such maturity, as do many over 40, but there's nothing we can do about that. There is no maturity test for voters.
10
Hi Allen,
Since, as you say, there is no "maturity test" for voters, why create one specifically for 16 and 17 year olds?
I am 64 now, but I felt strongly at 16 that the Vietnam war would have come to a quicker end with fewer lives lost if 16 and 17 year olds could have voted. I still believe that. Much of what passes for maturity is the same kind of "missing the forest for the trees" thinking that afflicts adults generally. There is a certain maturity that only the young possess, and we lose as we age.
3
Hi, Carlos:
We are not creating a maturity test for 16 and 17 year-olds as they are not currently allowed to vote.
As it is, there is a default maturity test build into the Constitution when it requires a minimum age for certain elected officials.
They should be able to count on the 18 year olds to do the right thing. Voting age lowered from 21 to 18 during the early 70s, because of protests - if you can draft us to serve in the Vietnam war, we should have the right to vote. They were right, and they now have the right to vote. I don’t think 16 year olds have a similarly compelling argument - but that doesn’t mean they cannot or should not actively particulate in and influence the national discussions about gun violence, environmental protections, and any other matters that will profoundly affect their lives in the future. I extremely proud of these young men and women.
6
A compelling idea supported by cognitive science. Meanwhile www.inspire2vote.com provides high school students with entirely NONPARTISAN website where they can register to vote online in most states. Inspire is the only nonpartisan organization registering high school students and then encouraging them to cast their votes closer to the election.
3
The problem is schools are not non-partisan environments. Dems just want to take advantage of all the kids they have indoctrinated before they learn the truth in the real world.
Although I am very impressed and prould of the students and their activiism, having 16 year olds voting may be more like parents having multiple votes. There is a world difference between sophomores and seniors or college freshmen in terms of informed and independent thinking.
22
Speaking as a college freshman, I don't know anyone my age who would have voted differently at 16 than they would now. Also I doubt that parents would have as much of an influence on the votes of 16- and 17-year-olds as many might think, especially since the ballot is secret. If anything I would think there would be a number of people voting intentionally against their parents' views. Very few teenagers want to be just like their parents. And with access to the Internet and a 24-hour news cycle I think parents have a lot less of a monopoly on the political information provided to their children than they did in previous generations.
1
I am glad to know your ability to be an independent thinker. My comment comes from many years of listening to and observing kids it is not an indictment of teens. Frankly, you have far more political information available to you than previous generations. But much of this information is highly biased and often weaponized. It is harder than ever to discriminate what is factual or what is misinformation. Not all students (nor adults unfortunately), are able or willing to fact check the information they consume.
I taught for more than 25 years and coached high school sports and I have observed many kids expressing their views. I am not surprised that some students may vote polar opposite of their parents, yet many follow suit. Recently I had a conversation with a parent of college freshman who was upset her child’s prof expressed his own views in class because they were not her views. I responded by saying it shouldn’t hurt to listen to someone else’s views as her child could still make up his own mind in the end. But this parent is not unlike many others who would say the same especially with regard to high school.
We are products of our upbringing and it plays a part. In my own family, even as adults, more than half voted for Trump, with children aligning with parents more often than not. My own grown vote like me and I never discussed politics.
Think about the pressure in Idaho to ban global warming from the curriculum. I doubt it was student driven.
The last point in the article, that 18-24 year-olds have the lowest turn-out is a direct result of the efforts of the Greedy Old Party to suppress voting by college students, because they know that the demographic skews progressive by a large margin. Instead of lowering the voting age for national elections (I think getting younger folks involved in local elections, especially for school board members, is a great idea), ensure that the barriers to voting for those in college away from their family's place of residence are removed. The fact that voting is a habit to be reinforced yearly should be emphasized early and often. Voter drives and special events for those who can prove they voted should be organized.
7
Young people should be able to vote, sure! Also felons should not be disenfranchised.
We need to make voting happen on a weekend, when many more people are likely to be off, even hourly wage earners...or make it a National holiday.
High school aged citizens are more likely to be more well informed about how government works (or at least to be currently learning about it and more likely to remember the details) and make better voters than someone who doesn't remember what they learned from high school.
All for this!
8
I love your post, El Herno. Very well said. Making Election Day a National holiday is an excellent idea! I am 100% in favor of it; in fact, I'm so pro-voting I would support legislation making it mandatory for all eligible citizens to vote in all national elections. Voting is a right AND a duty, and people need to show up at the polls and perform their civic duty.
2
I could wish you had qualified your felon opener. I think what you meant was felons who had served their sentences, and certainly those convicted of minor crimes in the school to prison pipeline and other forms of Jim Crow that jail people who are not criminals.
Wholeheartedly support your call to make voting day a holiday though. It's hard for working stiffs, particularly those without cars, the poor, the elderly, etc. to get IDs and the hoops they have to jump through may be exacerbated by employers who don't want to give them hours off to vote or get voter ID.
3
Hear hear on the suggestion for a National VOTING DAY Holiday! Or VOTING DYS: I have long urged that we make election "day" a two or three-day process, over a weekend (Friday to Sunday, or Saturday to Monday, and that one of those days be a true national holiday.
Conversely the widening use of early/absentee ballots is a very bad trend, except of course for people serving overseas or with serious physical impairment.
But to me this proposal to lower the voting age is nearly idiotic, supported by the worst kind of pseudo-science and anecdotal nonsense. Remember that rather silly 60s film, WILD IN THE STREETS, in which teenagers demanded the vote: "Fifteen or fight!' And then lowered it to 13, etc. The satirical point was that adults were capitulating to a fierce desire to embrace youth culture and be hip.
The only way to justify lowering the voting age would be to administer a test at voter-registration, which measured one's understanding of the national Constitution and possibly one's resident-state constitution as well. (Amazingly, immigrants who apply for citizenship have to take such a civics test, but American-born citizens do not.) I'd be surprised how many would-be voters could pass, whatever their age!
1
The electorate must demand real and significant gun law reform and must insist that any person running for political office on any level must stand first and foremost upon that platform. The media has a role to play in keeping the public focused on that goal and in moving public opinion toward that direction. The electorate must not be distracted by the machinations of the powerful influences who feel otherwise.
2
I am much more in favor of mandating all voting be done by mail; that's all elections, at all levels. That would automatically end any debate over ballot access, or frustration in getting to polling places, or even voting on the wrong day. All ballots would come with a pre-addressed envelope requiring no additional postage. Each ballot would come with an anonymous tracking number; entering that number a state's voting commission website would display whether it was received and counted. The total list of anonymous tracking numbers would be available for download after ballots were mailed, so voters could find their number on the list and ensure they weren't sent a fake ballot. It's an idea.
8
The reason 18 years old have the vote (it use to be 21) is because men were drafted to Vietnam. Even drink age was lowered to 18. I do not think the 16 years old voting right will pass any legislature. But let's encourage them to be active in politics and strive for voting at 18 and get involved in this country and take it back to a real democracy. I'm so proud of their response to the shootings in FL. I hope they keep it up nation wide. Adolescent are hope!
4
Yes. You can enlist at 17 so you should be able to vote, at least by 18. Also by then most kids have high school educations. Now we just need to get back to using public schools to prepare kids for citizenship instead of just job prep.
36
Drinking age was RAISED from 18 to 21.
2
There is also a citizenship training aspect to this, which is why we should do it while young people are still in high school: starting to vote while in high school will be reinforced by the atmosphere and the peer groups. Whichever way the politics go, the kids will really be learning how to become involved citizens and fully participating adults, which is the point.
12
NO.
Teenagers, adolescent children are barely capable of seeing past their own selfish interests, as in this, this Why We Should suggestion that is based SOLELY around ONE issue.
Voting is a right that should never be taken lightly. It's not a one-trick pony or a single-issue sound off.
72
Trump voters are barely capable of seeing past their own selfish interests and in fact often vote AGAINST their interests. Are you in favor of taking away their right to vote as well?
1
Since when has someone being "incapable of seeing past their own selfish interests" ever been an impediment to vote? I think that pretty much encompasses everybody.
1
Why stop at 16.
Does anyone remember the film Wild In The Streets, where this very topic was the subject? After getting their right, they went berzerk. The punchline was the protagonist, having won his election, overhears two 11 year olds talking how their rights are ignored.
Let's let babies vote, let's let foreigners vote, let's let everyone in the world vote for how OUR country should be run!!!
Yes, sarcasm. Deal with it.
Lowering the voting age to 18 was sensible. If we are going to ask 18 year olds to fight in our wars, they should be included in the politics of our nation.
But at 16, these children - and YES, they are still children, are not getting proper education in civics, government, law and due process.
Yes, there will be exceptions. You can find articulate kids in any age group. But across the board in America, our children are not being educated to employ critical thinking skills.
And giving people the right to vote based on single issues - with rare, rare exception - is always a bad idea. They will vote on the one issue, but have no clue about how their vote works in other issues, often far more complicated than a 30 second sound bite implies. They just do not have the depth of learning and understanding to know how to vote responsibly.
And how many of them will actually take the time to study the issues?
I know too many adults who won't bother to take the time to understand the issues they are voting on.
And you expect children to do better? Really?
9
Now for the real reason that a liberal or progressive would want the voting age lowered. It's the same reason they want felons to vote and it's why they want so badly to grant citizenship to the undocumented.
Are you ready? It's because they believe those groups will overwhelmingly vote Democratic. It's all for electoral advantage. That's it and that's all.
You can thank me later.
26
Are these the same reasons you would deny those groups the right to vote?
Exactly how do you know that felons or the undocumented who are granted citizenship (maybe in some future year) would vote Democratic? The fact is
that you don't know. Meanwhile, Republicans have been doing everything they can to restrict voting and gerrymander districts so that Republicans win no matter what the total vote counts are. As you say, it's all for electoral advantage. Who actually believes in democracy and the right to vote? Certainly not the Republicans. And apparently not you, either.
2
I think the idea of lowering the voting age to 16 yrs is one of the more ridiculous ideas floated. When the voting age was lowered to 18yrs Vietnam was in the headlines and too often those killed in that war had no voice in the matter. While kids and young adults have been gunned down in their school, I would like to think that in order to vote a certain level of maturity has been reached, even though if one were to look at individual twice the age or more certainly would come up short. But at 18 while the person may still live at home, adult responsibilities are looming in their face. A 16 yr old has the senior prom and ACT tests to look forward to. What is needed is for the adults to pull their collective heads out and figure out how to make society work better.
6
This is a puerile argument. If you let them vote at 16 then lower the draconian drinking age, which is a testament to emotion over reason. Other countries manage their kids without prohibition, but not our very puritan one. Many 16 year old's can drive, but only on a graduated license, presumably because they are still maturing, but sure, let them vote. They can't 'vape' until their 18 either. Is that because the state doesn't believe underage kids can make good decisions about their health? Sure, let them vote.
1
I totally agree. This is a disenfranchised group that has no representation and too few people advocating for their safety and future financial security. I am so impressed with how articulate those spokeskids in Florida have handled themselves. Bright, articulate, unafraid, passionate. They truly deserve the right to vote. We need people like that voting. As far as I'm concerned, lover the minimum age for the Presidency to 16 - we could do a lot better.
And they are the ones that will be paying the national debt (or the interest on the debt). They deserve a say on how money is spent and borrowed.
2
There is a better way to promote democratic value than lower then voting age. Mandatory military or civil service for everyone starting at age 18 or whenever you finish or drop out of high school, whichever is earlier.
3
Not going to happen in my lifetime.
1
Young adults should have a say in many things; this op-ed is merely unfortunate opportunism. Speaking of gray matter, 16 year olds may first learn of the scientific method and law: concepts such as skepticism; tested facts and data; due process; forensic evidence; and of course politics: special interests, legislative agenda and social networks. And the general cognitive misdirection that can emanate from authority, including the university academy.
Even assuming everything in this article is true, we know the probability of decreasing the voting age to 16 is 0 because young citizens, taken as a group, lean towards Democrats. Politics rules over rights. The same problem would present if the reverse were true, though NYT would not have printed an opinion piece such as this in the case that the young leaned Republican.
2
Why don't we just lower it to twelve or ten years of age. No wisdom, no adult life experience required. Or we could lower to eight par with our president's level of competence.
3
Terrible idea. A 16 year old is more likely to be influenced by his parents or social media and vote without truly understanding the ramifications.
If we do allow 16 year olds to vote, then they should be able to drink alcohol, go into the military, and have consensual sex or get married without a parent's consent.
5
Trump doesn't understand the ramifications of his new tariffs. He does not understand the difference between the national debt and a trade deficit.
We have an ignoramus in the WH. Age does not necessarily imply knowledge or wisdom.
2
The last time American youth realized how their lives were being directly and arbitrarily threatened by public policy was during the Draft for the Vietnam Nam War. As I remember it, their political efforts changed the draft and the course of the War.
This is insane. Teenagers 16 and 17 are the legal responsibility of their parents. If the author first proposes legally emancipating this group, his proposal might be seriously discussed. Would he consider that? Otherwise letting children vote appears merely another ploy to increase support for the Democratic Party.
3
No way. Maybe actually raise it to 21.
The idea of lowering the age just sounds like another play to their ego. Don't worry about it, Times readers. Those who 16 now will be 18 in time for the 2020 election. Maybe if you flatter them a bit more you can count on them to vote your way.
11
Outrage legislating is more dangerous than drunk driving and destructive on a much larger scale.
2
we should also take away peoples right to vote when they hit social security retirement age. people, faced with having to make better choices for themselves in the future might make them think more thoroughly about the possible long term effects of their decisions.
1
Yes, allow 16 year old youth to vote ! If we expect young people to act maturely then treat them not as kids but as thinking Americans of sound minds. Those who argue they are too young to make an informed choice would never argue that the elderly can no longer think clearly !
1
I'm fine lowering the voting age to 16 as long as we also lower the age for criminals to be tried as adults to 16 also. If you can vote for President at 16, then you are responsible for your actions as an adult.
2
16? Could be. But let's not allow people over 65 to vote. Why are they (me) being allowed to mold decisions for which consequences they (me) will be dead? You retire, you're done.
2
Why have a lower age at all? When our country was founded, the men who could vote generally had an education that corresponds to a low-grade school level now. Let's just let everyone vote!
Or maybe life experience and working in the real world are actually worth something.
1
I agree with the sentiment of this article.
I cannot buy-in to the major premise that they are ready for the responsibility.
When the voting age was dropped to 18, it made sense. This happened during the Vietnam war.....if the 18 year-old could be drafted....they should be allowed to vote.
I think 16 is too young!
Folks mature slowly...I might be willing to discuss "17" over a cuppa coffee!
1